Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 14

David Beckham move to Los Angeles Galaxy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Being on the main page is not a reason to speedy keep an AfD; it's not relevant. Closure should be overturned and either the AfD should be restarted or resumed. Rory096 20:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse speedy procedural keep Yes it is. See
  WP:CSK Bwithh 20:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The Carrion Fields (MUD) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Consensus on the deletion of this article only applies to a former article under the name of "Carrion Fields". "The Carrion Fields (MUD)" article was re-written specifically to address the problems that led to the deletion of the "Carrion Fields" article in 2005. Yet "The Carrion Fields (MUD)" was deleted for the same reasons as the "Carrion Fields" article was. The consensus reached in 2005 only applies to the "Carrion Fields" article, not to the "The Carrion Fields (MUD)" article. A request for prompt reinstatement is subsequently being made. 84.192.125.204 18:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. It was originally deleted for lack of notability, which this new article does not assert. I'd like an admin to restore for the sake of seeing if G4 was valid, but A7 would have applied anyway. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article describes a multi-user dungeon which has been operating since January 1994, and which has had its code copied by several newer muds as well. Muds that lack notability do not last 13 years.  :-) It is a rather invalid assessment. 84.192.125.204 18:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did longevity supply notability? I've been living for two years longer, and I'm not notable. My grandpa has been living for sixty years longer, and he still isn't notable. Longevity isn't even an assertion of notability. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is an individual person a direct comparison to a free-to-play public mud that requires a solid fanbase to merit its continued operation? You also oddly make no mention of the second fact; that this mud has had its code copied on several occasions by newer muds. Why do muds which suppossedly are not notable get their code copied exactly? 84.192.125.204 18:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're using the same definition of "notable" I am. My definition is in

WP:N, which says, paraphrased, "must have multiple independent sources discussing the topic". Excluding forums and blogs, you have 1, and that 1 is questionable. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, I am rather new to Wikipedia, am not very familiar with its guidelines, and have been welcomed by having hours of work arbitrarily deleted in my face without prior notice or explanation from anyone. But this is completely besides the point of course. Are you basically saying I first need to link to for example references from websites such a TopMudSites which discuss this particular mud and the impact it has made on the mudding community at large over the (many) years? 84.192.125.204 18:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite amazing to see how a new user is virtually treated as a type of criminal for merely trying to save hours worth of editing to an article he wrote in good faith for this website. I am definitely drawing a number of conclusions from this, and the majority of them are not positive. As it is, could the article at least be reinstated for a brief period to 'see if G4 is valid', so I can at least make a notepad copy of the content should I ever be able to meet these guidelines at some point in the future? Or, could you please copy the full content of The Carrion Fields (MUD) article's edit page in a notepad, and send this to [email protected] through attachment? I would hope that there actually exists at least one administrator on this entire website who is capable of showing a hint of a benign and helpful attitude towards a newcommer. 84.192.125.204 19:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion a MUD would have to be something pretty special to get an article, and while longevity is worth something, it's not enough by itself. If everything 13 years old got an article, we'd have one for any number of hot-dog stands, diners, and truck stops, not to mention one for every high-school student! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I personally don't see how Achaea, Dreams of Divine Lands is in any way more notable than one of the oldest still running muds on the internet such as The Carrion Fields, yet its article not only continues to exist but is in fact being protected by an administrator. I hope no conflict of interest is present there? 84.192.125.204 19:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is not
    Articles for deletion. ~ trialsanderrors 21:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Just to get this clear, I'm not 84.192.125.204(mind getting a nick?), however I totally agree with his point. Being the editor of the
  Achaea (MUD)
  for over a year now(feel free to check) and being generally aware of the situation, I cannot see any other reason for the deletion of the Carrion Fields article other than lack of understanding of the matter amoung the admins or somebody being crooked in here. Facts are: 1.) Achaea and Carrion are both MUDS. 2.) They are of the same age. 3.) They are both always in the top five of the TopMudSites(the only possible resource for a MUDs notability). 4.) The number of players online is in the same range for both MUDs. These four points are virtually what those MUDs can be described by. The big difference is that CarrionF is a MUD with is run for free, while Achaea is a commercial organisation which has the funds to pay for the advertisements. For an encyclopedia this should not make a difference.
• Now sunshines, if you want notability in shiny neon-lights go to a Robbie Williams concert. If you're speaking about a subset of a smaller unit, adjust your proportions. Example: Music - everybody listen to it, subset(Bob Marley or whoever) - a very large number of people need to listen to it. If you take a village of 50000 men with one band, it'll be notable there, however 50000 compared to 6 billion is a very small number. Now to MUDs. If you only have say 2 million people having a solid idea of what MUDs are, having 80 000 people knowing what Achaea or CF is, is more than enough to make it notable.
• CF is notable and personally I don't see how the article for the general idea of MUDs, which is by the way 100% useless to 99,9998% of this planet, is more significant than that of CF, which is also quite useless to the general population. People who play MUDs, a "significant" group, know CF as they know Achaea or any other "notable" MUD. People who don't play them are simply clueless on this matter. Now the guys deleting it were both clueless and ignorant of the regulations. Just as easily as that I can start deleting articles about the species of pinguins in the rainforest, cause they have no notability to me or any of my fellows. The individuals responsible for the deletion should have their admin status overlooked at once AND revert the removal process. Now, either you delete ALL articles about MUDs or you do us all a favour and place one of the most played text based games on net back into your article directory. ~~MaxGrin 23:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe people haven't seen these other articles. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Assumption of bad faith, anybody? The close must either have been crooked or due to stupidity, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with

WP:RS, could it? Endorse close, no new arguments, just new attacks. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Weak endorse deletion While the content of the articles is different, the relevant issues are not. The additional content in the new article does not include references to published sources that are independent and reliable. It consisted of detailed information about game features. Since it didn't address the prior reasons for deletion, I can endorse deletion. I wouldn't object to overturning and listing at AFD, but I expect that at AFD it would be deleted.
  GRBerry 03:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• This is a free encyclopedia which has the slogan “be useful” in its first lines. What do you need (technically, e.g. 5 admins voting or whatsoever?) for it to get re-posted? On a side note,
  WP:INN no applicible. PS: Can anyone please point at what the article actually looked like? ~~MaxGrin 07:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• You're misunderstanding how the
  AfD is for. WarpstarRider 08:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• First of all, my apologies, seems like I was wrong on certain matters. The article is quite different from an encyclopaedia entry and probably deserved its end. Thanks everybody for your help and please excuse the trouble caused (deletions are not exactly my strongpoint). However, it seems that the reason for the deletion was the respectable article being an advert rather than lack of notability. It’s notable, but the commercial structure had to be removed. May I suggest undeletion and trimming down to major facts with citations? I believe this would be a reasonable solution to the problem. ~~MaxGrin 11:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ill Mitch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

NOTARIETY IN A NATIONAL MAGAZINE ESTABLISHED Jellonuts 17:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstate this page. He was reviewed in April, 2003 STUFF Magazine on Page 38. This establishes enough notariety.

• Note: This is actually about Ill Mitch which was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ill Mitch, then deleted twice more as recreations, the most recent being today. Metros232 17:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. ~ trialsanderrors 17:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I understand that, but I have established sufficient notability so I do not understand why the latest page is being censored? Jellonuts 17:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, AfDed article was deleted 6 months ago, for different reasons than notability. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn This is a new article so whatever reasons there were for the old one are null. When it was made the author was not aware of previous deletion. I see no reason why this article is censored Jellonuts 17:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um... yes... there is no good reason... that's why I said overturn. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note:Sorry, I misunderstood and did not see you had said "overturn." Thanks
• Comment: It was only while nominating this for AFD that I noticed that it had a previous AFD. If this is overturned, I will AFD for nn reasons. Obviously as the person who deleted this for the third time, I vote keep deleted. The JPS^{talk to me} 18:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to do that, but I don't see why. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you want it deleted? Notability is established and I worked hard on it. The guy produces records, has songs on itunes, has been mentioned in Stuff Magazine, has high google, and has high hits on his web site. What else would you like in order to establish notability as an internet phenomenon? ?Jellonuts 18:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review isn't the place for such discussions, but fails

WP:BIO (which specifies multiple independent sources). The CDs are not available on the popular websites I've checked [1]. The JPS^{talk to me} 18:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Since when have independent artists been found on popular online stores?--69.140.240.105 21:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Where is the proper place to discuss this then, I am new and I do not know? deletion review is not the place to discuss reasons for deletion or reinstatement? Where else is there? Also, check itunes, that is a pretty popular web site, so itunes, Stuff Magazine, google are three independant sources, right? Jellonuts 19:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Why can't you at least do a temporary undelete since it was deleted without discussion? Restore it and go through the discussion process instead of deciding it for yourselfJellonuts 19:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit history restored. ~ trialsanderrors 21:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The consensus seems to be that the article stays, so would an admin please restore it? 67.167.130.247 23:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, there is no such consensus. Endorse deletion, where is this national magazne source? There were no reliable sources in the most recent version of the article. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once again, the source is the international high circulation periodical "Stuff Magazine" April 2003 issue, page 38 where he is reviewed and acknowledged. Also, music is avaliable on itunes. Also, the artist is referenced on wikiquote. Also, internet phenomenon is evidenced by nearly 2 million web hits and google rankings. What more notability do you want me to provide to convince you that this should not have been deleted without fair discussion and valid reason? I would have gladly added the references to the original page, had I known that I should, but it was deleted without any request for notability reference or discussionJellonuts 00:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Once again?" Where was this first brought up? And iTunes existence is not notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, forget itunes, but Stuff Magazine is notable. Also, here is another article about him from "Bacon Magazine" http://www.frymybacon.com/articles/articles.php?articleID=422. Also, here is the article from Colorado Daily, the newspaper from Thursday, June 12, 2003 http://www.boingboing.net/2003/06/12/russian_rapper_ill_m.html Furthermore, he is mentioned in a song by independant artist U-Kru which was linked to on the article. What do you mean by "where was this first brought up?" It was brought up right here and on the deleters talk page becasue it was deleted without ever being brought up or discussed.Jellonuts 01:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Neither of those is a
            reliable source. Give us mainstream magazines, newspapers, MTV, something that's peer reviewed. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • Are you seriously suggesting that Stuff Magazine is not a mainstream magazine. It is on every newstand and at every bookstore with high circulation in the U.S. and U.K. It is a sister magazine to Maxim Magazine. As for a newspaper, I also have also already given one of those, the Colorado Daily, from Thursday, June 12, 2003. I just don't understand what you are getting at, you are asking me for things I have already provided, and then calling them unreliable. I get the feeling that I am being held to an impossible standard to prove notability here. How can a newspaper and Stuff Magazine not be considered reliable independant sources? Here is a link to Stuff Magazine http://www.stuffmagazine.com/index.aspx Jellonuts 22:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, my Google search at '"ill mitch" -"illmitch.com" -myspace -wikipedia' returns 27,500, not 2 million. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was referring to the artists web site http://www.illmitch.com/ that has 1977735 hits. Jellonuts 01:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This DRV has been open for a total of 7 hours and there's no pressing reason to speedy close this. Metros232 00:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • There was no pressing reason to speedy delete it without discussion eitherJellonuts 00:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please familiarize yourself with
            WP:CSD. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • I apologise, but I am indeed a newbie and I am trying to learn as I go, so please forgive my ignorance. It would be a little more encouraging for new users if they were assisted in a polite way instead of having there work deleted with no discussion, and then having to defend themselves to seemingly inpatient and sometimes sarcastic experienced users. I did reading before I contributied, butyou can't expect a new user to know everything. I'm just trying to contribute a page for an internet phenomenon and I do not understand why it is deleted? Perhaps you could be so kind as to explain to me which of the criteria the article violated that caused it to be immediatley deleted, with no nomination or discussion because I read the page and I don't understand?Jellonuts 01:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • We get thousands of new articles a day, most of them not keepable. Realistically, it would be impossible to hold drawn-out discussions on all of them. That's why options like this exist to review decisions. Fan-1967 01:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • See G4 in the speedy deletion criteria. G4 is for recreated articles of previously deleted material which is what this was deleted as. Metros232 01:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • To quote G4 "Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical and not merely a new article on the same subject" It was not substantially identical at all and it was a new article on the same subject that, unlike the original deleted article judging from the original AfD discussion, conforms to wiki standards, so again, I ask, which policy did the article violate?Jellonuts 01:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Articles which fail
                    WP:CSD. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
                    ]
                    • But it does not fail notability criteria, I have provided sufficent references of notability.
• Very weak Overturn - inasmuch as this article is substantially different from the deleted one and has a news media mention, but honestly, I think it's going to be difficult to create a well-written, sourced article on this subject. You may want to work on it in your user space until it is ready ... but to be perfectly honest I have a hard time seeing an article on this topic ever surviving AFD. --BigDT 19:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the page and supplied all of the references and image tags. I am requesting one more time, after all this work, that the block be lifted so that I can replace the page with the new one. Then, if you don't like it you can nominate it for AfD and go through the discussion process rather than tyrannically deleting it without a discussion. I have satisfied the notability requirements, even if newspapers and national magazines are not good enough for YOU, they are good enough for wikipedia requirements and notability is specifically supposed to NOT be a subjective criteria. Please lift the block.Jellonuts 12:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you update the page, so that others can review what you did? And please quit referring to proper deletion processes as "censorship". User:Zoe|(talk) 21:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears Jellonuts has created the page on his user talk page, see User talk:Jellonuts. Metros232 21:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Metros. Having read that, I still have to say that no reliable sources have been provided. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • First, I don't believe it was a "proper deletion" because AfD was never done, and if it my mistakes had been brought to my attention I would have corrected them. Second, I had replied to your accusations that these sources are not reliable above and you never responded further. Please tell me specifically how these sources are not reliable, especially the newspaper and national entertainment magazine, and online magazine and see my comments under our previous conversation. Jellonuts 22:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Have you read
          WP:RS yet? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Yes I have, have you? The sources are verifiable, and reliable. They meet all the criteria in
            WP:RS
            It is obvious to me that nothing I could ever provide will change the minds that have already been made up. I tried to make a contribution in good faith, I have no alterior motives. I was just making an article about this internet celebrity rapper guy that I came across. I am apparently either very ignorant, or I am being held to an impossible standard. You people are very discouraging to a new contributor acting in good faith, it's a wonder anyone bothers using their time to contribute. I work on this page, then it gets deleted without ANY discussion. I talk to that ADM, who tells me to provide a source and s/he will replace it. I do this, and s/he ignores me. I come here to deletion review, and a few people agree. Those who do not request things like "mention in a magazine and a newspaper." I provide you with EXACTLY that, and then you tell me the very thing you requested in not good enough. I am told by one ADM to recreate the page in my user space, so I spend the time doing that, and then a different admin deletes things there because I am apparently not supposed to have images and whatnot in my user space. Why don't you assist people like me to improve their contributions rather than taking on an offensive to delete the contribution, and worse yet, drive the contributor away by fighting against them instead of helping them?

I am going to request one last time, since the 5 days are up, that this be unprotected so that I may restore the page and then it can go through the process of AfD if you so wish.Jellonuts 13:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - The request is faulty, as the requestor has too much of a vested interest in the topic; the account was inactive for a year, and all edits since reactivation on 15 November 2006 are related to this artist. Google brings up the artist's site, myspace, and a bunch of forums, none of which contribute to notability. There appear to be no other articles, and the artist has no entry on Allmusic. As the available sources I can find qualify as self-published, article fails notability. MSJapan 22:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you "self-publish" in Stuff Magazine, or the Colorado Daily Newspaper? You know what, I've spent too much of my time on this. I tried to contribute, and it is obvious neither I nor my contributions are wanted here. I am tired of being judged and wasting my time on an article that obviously nobody wants on their wikipedia. Judge me because I have spent all my time on THIS article lately? Well, my time is important and if I did not have to spend all my time fighting against people who would rather throw any technicallity they can at me rather than help me learn, then maybe I would have time to contribute to other articles. Do whatever you want! I'm frustrated and I'm done. I truly hope you treat future new users with fair intentions better than I've been treated. If you make us all feel unwelcome and drivien away, wikipedia will not work as it was intended. You lost an educated and well-intentioned contributor today, and for what? Is wikipedia better off now without this article? How? You may think so, but I think not. There was an entry here about a silly rapper guy who has a weird cult fan following, odd but noteable. Granted, not on MTV or Time Magazine, but among many people and among several independant, reliable, highly circulated sources. (I can't believe you don't consider Stuff Magazine a mainstream publication? You better delete Stuff's wiki article too becasue it is not notable, right?) Now, it is deleted and anyone who ever wanted to seek information about it on wikipedia is SOL, and I am discouraged and disappointed. Congratulations, you win, but the wikipedia project loses. Jellonuts 00:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Sullo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The other related articles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susam Pal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Seifert, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Security Foundation, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toufeeq Hussain in this series have been closed as delete or are clearly going towards a delete. But this one was closed as "no consensus". I believe that closing admin User:Cbrown1023 failed to notice that none of the two users who voted keep had a valid argument. One of them cited "Desperate wish" as the reason to keep the article, the another one cited what he called "notable references" -- but I clearly pointed out that none of these references are notable. Out of four links provided, one says that he is mentor for Summer of Code projects, second mentions that he is one of the many volunteers for OSVDB, third mentions he is author of a web scanner tool, fourth one has just one sentence: "Nikto, by Chris Sullo, is based on the next generation LibWhisker library." Jyothisingh 14:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see much to establish notability. TonyTheTiger 18:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ask your security folks what tools they use to make sure wikipedia.org is secure... I bet you they use Nikto as part of their kit. Yes, this is my article. No, I didn't write it. Have fun, whatever your decision is. —The preceding
  unsigned comment was added by Csullo (talk • contribs) 06:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC).[reply
  ]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 07:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete. It doesn't really matter what Wikipedia uses; Wikipedia has not yet reached the point that anything it uses becomes notable because of that. Keep reasons made no sense. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The four links provided in the AfD give no non-trivial published works where Sullo is the primary subject. Fails
  WP:BIO. BigNate37_(T) 06:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn and delete, closure was incorrect.
  ► 15:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Relist - A couple of comments in favor of keeping this article follow. The wikipedia criteria for biographical works include the following:

"Being the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works"

Chris Sullo and Nikto are referenced in several computer security handbooks and scholarly works. Please refer to the following lists of works via Google or directly on cirt.net

In his 2006 list of top 100 network security tools, notable security expert Fyodor lists Nikto as #12.

Nikto is listed as #1 in the more defined class of web scanners. In 2003, Nikto was awarded #16.

While the entries listed above include Chris Sullo and his work as one of several sources of reference, this also establishes the criteria of "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work"

"The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their [sic] specific field"

The following is evidence of Chris Sullo's contribution to the security industry:

• Chris Sullo, Nikto, and
  OSVDB
  are widely known and well regarded within the computer security industry. This is evidenced by the reference material listed earlier as well as mentions made at various computer security conferences.
• Chris Sullo is the published author to publicly released vulnerabilities in Trillian, Apache, Verity Ultraseek, cPanel,

Netgear routers, MySQL Eventum, Cyclades Alterpath ([1, 2, 3), and more.

• Chris Sullo is not just "one of the many volunteers" for
  OSVDB
  ; he is a founder, board member, and project leader.
• A short list of jobs where Sullo's published work, Nikto, is listed as required or preferred areas of expertise for many jobs. Similarly, Nikto is often a topic of instruction in computer security classes.
• Sullo's published work, the Nikto database, is in use by several commercially available security products.

• As pointed out earlier, Chris Sullo is not the primary subject of these multiple non-trivial published works.
  Nikto Web Scanner has already got an article of its own, and it mentions that Chris Sullo is the author. That's fair enough, in my opinion. Jyothisingh 14:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Relist As a matter of rhetoric, the fairness argument is woefully weak. It has already been conceded that Chris Sullo was not the primary subject of the above referenced works, however that is not the sole guideline wikipedia has established for deletion and the entry did meet other criteria. While deletion may be fair in the opinion of many, the argument lacks adherence to the deletion guidelines. For one, fairness, is not a guideline. If it were, then there would be several other biographies that are ripe for deletion --- you know, in the interest of fairness ---- for the subjects of those biographies do not have non-trivial works solely written about them. I don't even disagree that it is a fair consequence, I just don't see where fairness is of relevance. Alternatively, one could modify the guidelines to include because it seems fair as a valid reason for deletion... or perhaps, modify the guidelines to state that should there be no evidence of non-trivial published works written solely in reference to the subject of the biography, the biography should be deleted in favor of the page referencing the contribution itself (in this case the Nikto web scanner). At this time, that is not a guideline, so this biography does not meet the criteria for deletion. Another reasonable course of action would be to reach out to other leaders and innovators in the security industry whose biographies are noted in wikipedia and consider their opinion as to whether or not the subject of this article is indeed notable and worthy of his own biography. Their opinions should be considered a stronger litmus test than those l who have little if any knowledge in the field. (JaneEleanor 02:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Mindstar Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

references available Requesting undeletion of the following articles
Mindstar Productions
Mindstar Aviation
Cinergy Motion Picture Production System
Cinergy MPPS
Cinergy Script Editor
Per the following note from an admin, sufficient references were provided, but weren't listed in the article at the time of deletion. The notice I received from the admin is listed below:

The references you gave are fine, and there are others. You may be able to get your article undeleted, take a look at Wikipedia:Deletion review. For now, I created a temporary page under your userspace: *****. This shows the proper way of referencing. --ElectricEye (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC) IGuy 19:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like a
  conflict of interest to me. Articles failed to assert notability (e.g. "The Cinergy Script Editor is a free Windows-based word processing software package that allows the user to write a screenplay in the most commonly accepted format."). Guy (Help!) 19:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Conflict of interest?? It's a guideline, just like
    WP:AGF... --ElectricEye (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • "Guideline" doesn't mean "can be ignored whenever we feel like it". --
      Steel 19:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • I'm not ignoring anything.
        WP:AGF. There's no conflict of interest on my part. --ElectricEye (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Comment from deleting admin: This DRV is very premature. I deleted a few articles on a CSD run, and ask for sources when someone contests said deletions. I then leave my computer to make dinner, and on my return find that someone has recommended a DRV. The first port of call for contested speedies should not be DRV. --
  Steel 19:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • If DRV is not the first port of call for contested speedies, then what is the first port of call. Please tell the new user here, User:IGuy, who wants help. --ElectricEye (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Presumably the deleting admin's talk page. --W.marsh 20:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Instruction creep. More important is a discussion about notability. --ElectricEye (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think anyone's suggesting requiring it... but it's just a more polite and often more productive way of going about it. I can file a formal complaint about a co-worker who bugs me, but a less confrontational and possibly better way of going about it is to just talk to them about the problem. --W.marsh 23:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Demonstrating the notability of Mindstar Productions is easy. Almost all of Cessna's aircraft are shipped with one of Mindstar's products: Garmin G1000.[2] --ElectricEye (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight clarification: Mindstar Productions is the publisher of Garmin G1000. --ElectricEye (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information about the product does not indicate that the company satisfies the
    WP:CORP criteria. To warrant an article, rather than the simple mention as the manufacturer in Garmin G1000 that it has now, the company has to have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works from independent sources. Uncle G 20:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • IGuy has some references on his talk page. --ElectricEye (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• In the midst of this discussion, someone presumably involved in this discussion has gone into the article for Garmin G1000 and tried to edit it to assert that Mindstar is the publisher of THE Garmin G1000, when in fact, Mindstar is the publisher of a SIMULATION of the Garmin G1000 for Microsoft Flight Simulator. If my postings here about the stated products are not worthy of Wikipedia in some way, that's fine, but now it appears someone had, on my behalf, edited the wiki for Garmin and asserts information about Mindstar that isn't accurate. The problem is becoming compounded. I have corrected the Garmin wiki to remove the incorrect information, and I will refrain from any further postings until we hear a final resolution to the discussion about my deleted postings. IGuy 22:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 07:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse
  GRBerry 22:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• how can I discuss what I've never seen? since this came direct from a speedy, there wasn't even a AfD I could have followed. Unless the editors above have had the authority to undelete and used it for their private viewing, on what basis are they discussing it?DGG 22:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD

)

ECourier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

INAPPROPRIATELY_DELETED Jaybregman 01:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC) I believe the administrator

• Note: This is about
  Ecourier. ECourier redirects to Ecourier automatically, but admins can view the past history at Special:Undelete/ECourier. Metros232 02:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion. What the heck? I see a test page, and a couple other things. Nothing about a company. And your tone does not help, Jay. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's just the point! I have made clearer the Internet Archive link but do you see how difficult it is (and frustrating) this is? The IA link is accurate as of March 2006. jaybregman
• Three things:

1. "Our company"
2. Excerpt from the article: "eCourier uses an
   Operations Research
   can be applied to solve real-world bottlenecks. In addition to dispatchinG deliveries within seconds eCourier allows customers to track deliveries on a map in real-time as their couriers move from allocaTion to collection through to delivery and sends immediate proof of delivery emails the second a delivery has been completed."
3. This is a contested speedy. Shouldn't be on DRV anyway.

• I am not going to entertain this any further. --
  Steel 02:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

1. I understand, but that in itself should NOT be used as a reason to categorise the *content* as advertising. To do that one should only look at the *content*
2. Excerpt from the article: "eCourier uses an intelligent dispatch and Fleet management system A.I.B.A. to match incoming bookings to the most appropriate couriers through analySis of rEaL-time data including traFfic & demand patternS, weathER conditions and indiVidual courIer performaNce.

Fact. See references at Times Article, Silicon.com, etc.

Yes it is a contested speedy--if it should not be here where should it go? The article says to leave a message on your talk page which was done and to appeal here if refused, which is how I take your response. Do you really think "I am not going to entertain this any further" is appropriate when the topic of discussion is summarily deleting information without discussion?

• Endorse speedy deletion The article was written as an advertisement. It was therefore completely appropriate to delete it under
  GRBerry 04:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion and throw in my hat to say that the behavior of Jaybregman here is completely inappropriate. JuJube 07:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the Conflict of Interest guidelines thoroughly and I think we all need to step back and remember a few points here. First, I don't believe I did write the original article, I just edited it (please could an admin check this and post). Second, the COI guidelines make very clear that although editing an article in which you have an interest should be avoided, it is not forbidden and if your interest is declared and the SUBSTANCE of your edits are fair, there is no problem. "All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to rules covering criteria for articles (what Wikipedia is not); encyclopedic quality (verifiability and original research); editorial approach (neutral point of view); as well as the Wikipedia copyright policy. All editors are expected to stick closely to these policies when creating and evaluating material. WHO has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to." Note my emphasis on the last sentence, these are from the guidelines themselves. What I don't think is right about this discussion is that people are inferring something about the content of an article (that it's not just advertisement, but blatant advertisement) SIMPLY from my declared status as an editor with some COI. That is not right and contrary to the COI policy. The two users who posted above have not indicated any specific content from the article which would characertise it as "blatant advertisement". If it is so blatant, could someone please indicate this with reference to the CONTENT of the article? I also note that the criteria for speedy deletion is not just advertisement (ANY article written on a company by anyone will by its very nature contain what can be seen as advertisements assuming it describes its products and services) but that it be "blatant". It's quite frustrating that no one will engage me in a substantive discussion here. Anyway, following on from

• Overturn The article has been reconstructed, edited, and detailed references have been added which include highly reputable sources such as The Economist, The Times, The Financial Times, Published Academic works (e.g. Proceedings of the ITS World Congress 2006) as well as comments from Academics. I considered adding a disclaimer but I was not sure if this was appropriate. I would ask that the article be restored, and that if any admins still believe the article to qualify as "blatant advertising" that they respond here with reference to the content of the article as to why they believe to be so (hopefully if this does happen the article can be further edited to ensure it meets quality standards).Jaybregman 14:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The article has been deleted by someone (which I think was inappropriate as it is under discussion here) so I have reposted so that everyone has a chance to see the updated article. Could I again ask admins not to summarily delete the article but rather post any issues you have with the updated content here for discussion and consensus. Thank you. Jaybregman 09:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you do in this case is ask an admin to restore the history. You don't just recreate it. JuJube 09:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry JuJube, I'll admit not an expert here. Could you (or someone) please restore the page as of yesterday so that we might hold more informed discussion on the new content? I don't see why it was necessary to delete the page whilst this discussion was still ongoing?Jaybregman 09:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion of spam, close this due to egregious
  WP:COI on the part of the nominator. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Guy, would you mind indicating with reference to the text why you feel the article is "spam"? I cannot see how you can reasonably believe this given the references, and if it is so obvious it shouldn't be a problem for you to justify. Likewise, "egregious
    WP:COI" is not a valid reason for deletion in and of itself--the only reasons text can be deleted are because the text itself fails to meet quality standards, the identity of the author notwithstanding, correct?Jaybregman 08:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Have you read
  WP:COI yet? Guy (Help!) 00:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• • • • Every word! Guy, the essence of the guideline is that editing articles in which you have a COI should be avoided. It does NOT say it is expressly forbidden. Nor does it say that articles can be deleted *simply* because an editor declares COI. That's because the guideline is very well thought out, and state that although editors with a COI will be inclined to write biased or otherwise inappropriate content (which is why COI needs to be watched closely) the only way to judge whether content is appropriate or not is by looking at the CONTENT, not the CREATOR or EDITOR behind the content. I have posted the following salient quote direct from the policy above: ""All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to rules covering criteria for articles (what Wikipedia is not); encyclopedic quality (verifiability and original research); editorial approach (neutral point of view); as well as the Wikipedia copyright policy. All editors are expected to stick closely to these policies when creating and evaluating material. WHO has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to." (my emphasis). So, the real question here is can anyone involved in this discussion point to content in the revised article which suggests it is "blatant advertising"? If so, they should post it here. That's the purpose of a deletion review--to review the *content* to be deleted--not simply to review the editors. The arguments of everyone who has endorsed deletion can be summed up simply: "Editor has declared COI, therefore article *must* be advertising / spam / bias, therefore should be deleted". That's logically corrupt. In order to make this argument work one would have to (and one should EASILY be able to if it is indeed the case) list one or more quotations from the article which put it into any of those categories. No one has done so--so the real question is--why not? Guy, please you have labelled it "spam"--can you justify this comment with reference to the content, which is the *only* reason a piece of text could be called "spam"? It's terrifying to think that under the standards which are implicit in the arguments of those who endorse deletion, any article in which an editor has a COI which is declared or discovered can be deleted without review, or the edits can be deleted without review, and this deletion can be justified. That seems highly contrary to the principles of truth through open discussion which pervade the site (indeed, it's contrary to the very guidelines you cite and ask if I have read).Jaybregman 14:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, I'll fill this one. I'm looking at the deleted revision of
          Ecourier
          from 17:50, 14 January 2007 (that's the one you started writing in the middle of the DRV):
          • • Sincere thanks for referring to the text. It makes me think we could have settled this outside a DRV if I hadn't overreacted (I apologise for this, by the way).Jaybregman 10:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Differing from the traditional hub-and-spoke distribution systems pioneered by <competitors' names here>"
            • This is covered in the
              Release 1.0 article which can be found here [3]
              . "With its simple architecture, the FedEx model reduced errors to well below 5 percent and created an industry where none had existed before...The new model we discuss here is different. Rather than simplify operations to make exceptions rare, the new P2P models de facto make every transaction an exception...Each courier pickup is a dynamic, real-time, semi-optimized event" (p4).
              

• • • • • • "eCourier [was] founded in 2003 by entrepreneurial Dartmouth College alumni Tom Allason and Jay Bregman to revolutionise the express delivery market."
            • I take it you are probably not disagreeing with the first part of the sentence (but please note in a later revision the word "entrepreneural" was removed). However, if you do, note cite here [4] from CNBC European Business magazine: "the two first met at Dartmouth University..." (please note the author erroneously calls Dartmouth a university, I'm sure there is more discussion on this at Dartmouth College.
              

Ok, so the second part of the sentence "to revolutionise the express delivery market". I see your point as to how this could be interpreted as non-neutral. I think it is more powerful to change it to
eCourier [was] founded in 2003 by Dartmouth College alumni Tom Allason and Jay Bregman. The company states it is "determined to revolutionsise the way a courier comapny looks after both its couriers and clients" (include cite to [5] which is already there). This way, it is clear what the company is asserting on its corporate site as its mission (c.f. "Google's mission statement is to 'organise the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" Google article, which includes link to corporate site). Do you still have any issues with this sentence?Jaybregman 10:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • "eCourier uses an intelligent despatch and fleet management system A.I.B.A. to match incoming bookings to the most appropriate bicycle, motorbike and van couriers through analysis of real-time data including traffic & demand patterns, weather conditions and individual courier performance."

I personally think the citations to this are sufficient. But again, it's more powerful to use the text of the citations in the decription, it has the added benefit of making the article more encyclopedic and eliminating the appearance of pushing unverified information. So, we can do this: eCourier developed and uses in its operations an intelligent despatch and fleet management system it calls A.I.B.A. The system "uses a detailed geographical model of its London operations, including predicted and actual traffic patterns, weather, package demand, real-time courier availability, and other data" (Release 1.0 article, p11) to "[match] jobs and couriers in real time, using its knowledge of where they are" (ibid). How does it work? "AIBA knows where all th eCouriers are, and it knows what they are carrying and how fast they are moving. This information is combined with the latest traffic and weather reports. The computer also compares the journey with previous patterns, allowing it to calculate the impact of a traffic jam, a thunderstorm, or just a busy Friday afternoon. It then uses this information to predict a travel time for the collection and delivery and allocates each new delviery to the most appropriate courier. The whole process takes milliseconds."(See Despatch Manager article [6]. Note I also could have used Release 1.0 for a more technical discussion of the inner-workings, but I wanted to keep it simple and vary the sources used).
Do you still have any issues with this sentence?Jaybregman 10:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • "A.I.B.A. is an example of how Operations Research can be applied to solve real-world bottlenecks."
            • I don't see the problem with the citation, but it's again stronger to change to:

A.I.B.A is a "great example of how an entreprenurial company can use Operations Research to gain tremendous competitive advantage". And add cite to Michael Trick's OR Blog (author is CMU academic. I also cited this above (have listed google cache here because main site is having issues, see 23 June post) [7]
See also [8] where The Economist notes "...an elaborate algorithm that is now at the heart of eCourier's business, in much the same way as a mathematical formula drives Google's search engine". Do you still have any issues with this sentence?Jaybregman 10:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • "In addition, eCourier allows customers to track deliveries on a map in real-time as their couriers move from allocation to collection through to delivery and sends immediate proof of delivery emails the second a delivery has been completed."
            • Again, these are factual descriptions of the company's products and services. By its very nature any article on a company will include this (see again Google and c.f. "Google is well known for its web search service, which is a major factor of the company's success. It indexes billions of web pages so that users can search for the infomration they desire through the use of keywords and operators.") However, there is no real problem with a re-formulation:
              

eCourier's web site allows customers to "track their courier on a map in real-time, with [time] estimates for pickup and delivery." After the delivery is completed, "the client then receives an instant e-mail proof of delivery complete with digital signature of the signer." (cite to Despatch Manager article available here[9]) The company has set up a demo of its online tracking system here track deliveriesJaybregman 10:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • "By re-engineering the traditional business model the company has been able to capture market share very quickly and differentiate on both value-added offerings and service in an otherwise commoditised marketplace."
            • Ok, fair point, should be fleshed out individually. Suggested change
              

eCourier has grown substantially since it started operations in September 2004 with only four couriers: "After just 19 months of operations, eCourier is handling 15,000 deliveries per month, for some of London's largest investment banks, law firms, and retailers" FT ([10] with "85% of the company's bookings [made] over the internet". (The Economist, see cite above). Do you agree with this change?Jaybregman 10:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • So yes, it was very spammy. WP:COI sounds like a brilliant reason to stop you writing any more of this corporate drivel. --
          Steel 14:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Not sure the histrionics are necessary, but in any case, looking forward to your comments on the revisions above.Jaybregman 10:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Quick extra: that's not *all* the spammy material in the article. I stopped reading about half way through because I already had enough examples. --
          Steel 15:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • No problem, if you feel there is more, post it so we can discuss. I hope you agree your "examples" have been replaced by text which is beyond reproach (or if you don't you will let us know with reference to the text). I think the crucial point this exchange proves is that the article is by no means unsalvagable, but more importantly this discussion on the text will lead to a much stronger article.Jaybregman 10:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Jaybregman. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion under G11, and I see some rather serious
  WP:COI issues here, as is usually the case when somebody is fighting tooth-and-nail to get an article kept. Perhaps a sourced article without any advertising tone will be created in the future by an uninvolved party, until then it's probably better to put this to rest. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Livingston Airline Destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD

)

• Comment: I deleted and stand by it. Only five people wanted to keep; one gave a reason as precedent that other airlines have destination articles but s/he would endorse deleting if they all were; one basically gave
  WP:ORG which doesn't even apply. A strong 10 vs. a weak 5 with the final person wanting to merge and redirect. (If folks want the deleted content to merge in, I'll supply it). —Wknight94 (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion. "Slippery slope", while arguably a valid reason in an AfD, is most certainly not a valid reason in a DRV (since it isn't XfD round 2}, and AfD is not a vote, so vote counts are irrelevant. Especially with the aforementioned
  WP:ILIKEIT comments. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse delete, no satisfactory reason was given as to why such a list should be on Wikipedia in the first place. It seems more appropriate for Wikitravel, if nothing else. Axem Titanium 06:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - A satisfactory argument has to be made that the article should be deleted, and it wasn't really. Half of the nominator's statement was incorrect, as WP does have other such lists. Aside from that, it's interesting how wknight manipulates the numbers there. The counts were actually 10 delete, most of which made sense, a couple were weak; 5 keep, 4 of which were perfectly reasonable; and 1 merge, which is still a keep, since the content should remain. Moreschi has some interesting comments on his talk page indicating he supports deleting everything in sight, and an administrator went so far as threatening to block him over another deletion issue, so this diminishes the credibility of his comments. 10-6 (or, more like 9-5) is no consensus. DB (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can be. Consensus is not determined by counting heads. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, consensus is not a vote. >Radiant< 10:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does that have to do with anything? The argument is that there wasn't a real consensus. DB (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The argument is that there wasn't a consensus because the numerical count doesn't match the nominator's idea of what the numerical count should be. That's a red herring since consensus is not a vote. >Radiant< 09:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and merge. The fact that the mass listing of the airline destination lists seems headed for a "keep" indicates that this result is an anomoly. By deleting this article we lost valid and verifiable information about
  Livingston Airlines
  and that is a great pity. Information about where an airline carrier flies is present for just about all other airlines we have here and is highly relevant for coverage of the company. In regards to the arguments presented for deletion, all of them can be rebutted.

1. The list is not an indiscriminate collection of information because information on where an airline flies is relevant to the coverage and therefore encyclopedic.
2. Unless you are seriously claiming that the airline schedule is not a reliable way of determing where an airline flies (why on earth would an airline say they fly to a place if they don't?), I cannot see any way in which this article is
   unverifiable
   .
3. Newspapers frequently report about airlines coming and leaving their local airport, so
   notability
   should not be a major issue.
4. It is not a travel directory, but valid information about where an airline goes. The book I have on airlines (Modern :Commercial Aircraft) is paper and is therefore forced to say things like "Heavens Airlines flies to 43 destinations in North America, Europe and Africa", as an online reference we can do better and provide the full destination list.

At least two of the "delete"s presented no real argument for deletion, I will mention CyberAnth and Akihabara ("delete this along with some other articles" with no reasoning). Hence, I think AFD got this one badly wrong and this should be undeleted.

(The reason I am saying "merge" is that the airline in question here is small (a fleet of only six aircraft) and a destination list for an airline of that size can be reasonably put into the article.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks to WKnight's offer to undelete for merging purposes I have placed the list into the main
  Livingston Airlines article with some modifications due to updates. Can we call this discussion over now? Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Redirect As the content is now merged; we need a redirect for GFDL history.
  GRBerry 17:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn and restore or delete based on the result of my mass AfD on destinations lists:
  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines destinations, as per being covered by it. Consider that a relist if you wish, that is what it is in practice, I s'pose. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]