Wiki143:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 26

26 January 2007

Bought Science – Copyright violation, unencyclopaedic content, unreliable source – Guy (Help!) 20:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:La (restore|AfD) IMHO, this page should not have faced speedy deletion by Jeffrey O. Gustafson. If pages such as Junk science and Sound science can exist on Wiki, then surely one for Bought science should be. Bought science is neither any more of a neologism, nor a POV, than "Junk science" or "Sound science" is, as Jeffrey alleges. NorthMiamiBeach 13:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC) "Bought science" only gets about 2000 hits on Google (the neologism half), and the text of the article irrelevantly goes into the issues you bring up in your POV essay listed below (the POV part of the equation). Wikipedia is not a venue to air your grievances with the PMRA. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC) You claim I have grievances with the PMRA? Not so, that's unfounded. These are very real concerns by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development (Charles Caccia report entitled: "Pesticides: Making the Right Choice", May 16, 2000) and Canada's Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Johanne Gelinas (all cited in the PMRA article). As for rapid deletion by claiming it is POV, well, isn't that's a fine way to censor anything that one disagrees with!--NorthMiamiBeach 14:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC) I do not disagree with your opinion (nor do I agree with it). I do disagree with your attempts at trying to inject your opinion into Wikipedia, both through this article and the POV essay I deleted (see below). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Endorse deletion, egregious soapboxing, original research and a neologism, all from a single-purpose account. Guy (Help!) 15:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Endorse deletion and cite copyviolation when deleting restored history. Copyright violation is of [1]. Published there under the same license that does not allow derivative works or commercial use. GRBerry 16:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Problems with the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) – Copyright violation, unencyclopaedic content, unreliable source – Guy (Help!) 20:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:La (restore|AfD) I question why this page faced speedy deletion. It was not patent nonsense, nor advertising, nor a personal attack page, but rather a well written and researched article critical of the PMRA. If other Wikipedia pages can exist that are critical to issues such as global warming (i.e. the movie an Inconvenient Truth etc), or Criticisms to the 911 Movie "Loose Change" (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change_%28video%29#Criticism ), then surely one critical of the PRMA should also be allowed to exist, without being deleted. I would appreciate a Wikipedia panel review on this matter. NorthMiamiBeach 12:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC) If not a copyvio, it is an unencyclopedic essay. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC) It is not a copy violation, as I hold authorship rights. As for "unencyclopedic", that is not a qualification for speedy deletion. It is my opinion that my article is of merit and should not be deleted. --NorthMiamiBeach 13:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Endorse deletion, no link to the infringed material given that I can see so I can't endorse on the basis of copyright violation (assuming that's what 'cv' means - what, even 'copyvio' takes too long to type now?), but this is an essay, not an encyclopaedia article. Please see what Wikipedia is not. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the link on 'What Wiki is not...' Upon reviewing that, I fail to see the PMRA article as being a personal essay. Rather, the article references the works of others who share the opinions that the PMRA is problematic, i.e. Canada's Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Johanne Gelinas... etc)--NorthMiamiBeach 13:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Endorse deletion, egregious soapboxing, original research and a neologism, all from a single-purpose account. Guy (Help!) 15:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Endorse CopyVio Deletion It is a copy of [2] (to the point of having identical typos), which is licensed under a Creative Commons license that does not allow derivative works or commercial use. Award deleter a cookie for spotting this, and a trout for not saying what it was a copyvio of. Additionally, we shouldn't have an article on criticism of X, without first having an article on X. The PMRA is one small branch of Health Canada, and does not yet have an article. And an article on criticism of X should not be at a title beginning "Problems with". GRBerry 16:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Ooh, extra bonus of being a non-reliable source; on the site's legal disclaimer they say " The information is not guaranteed to be accurate, nor does The Coalition for a Healthy Ottawa take responsibility for it. The information comes from other sources and therefore may be wholly unreliable, and CHO does not guarantee its suitability for any purpose." GRBerry 16:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Adam Keller court martial – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 07:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:La (restore|AfD) (1) The court martial is notable because (a) Court matialsPolitical court matials are rare events in Israel, and normally do not occur more than once in 10 years, (b) the court martial was covered in all the main newspapers in Israel at the time including the English language Jerusalem Post and the Arabic Al-Ittihad and was recently referred to by the British Guardian. (2) The deletion was an Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Abuse_of_deletion_process. The proposer of the deletion (User:Yellow up) makes no attempt to hide his disgust at the actions of Adam Kellner describing Kellner as "irrelevant" and using the term "military evaders". The proposer made a number of incorrect assertions to back up his request for undeltion. User:Yellow up is entitled to his oppinion of Israeli dissidents and their actions. And I imagine that in the highly polarised atmosphere surrounding the Arab/Israeli conflict many Israelis share his opinion. But the deletion policy clearly states that "XfD (deletion) processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally." The deletion discussion did raise sime problems with the way the article was written. But these should be handled by fixing the article rather than deleting it. Abu ali 10:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Endorse deletion for now, unless you can present some solid evidence like citations that this was actually covered in major papers. That was brought up in the AFD, but ultimately there wasn't evidence for it. I recognize many of the other participants arguing for deletion as AfD regulars whose opinions necessarily count in determining consensus, even if we were to disregard the nominator. I agree that notable content should be fixed rather than deleted, but you've got to prove it's notable first.--Kchase T 11:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Fair point. The problem is that the court martial occured in 1988, before papers had archives on the internet. The bigger libraries in Israel would contain hard copies of back issued of the relevant issues, and I hope that given time, some of our Israeli editors will dig out concrete citations. In the mean time we can start with the following article in the Guardian [[3]]. Abu ali 12:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Here's an article that might help: [4] --NE2 16:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC) The link NE2 provided gives a number of citations: Jerusalem Post Dec 19 1995, Ha'aretz (May 6, 1988) and Washington Report on Middle East Affairs Dec 1, 2004. Many thanks to NE2! Abu ali 16:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC) It was a valid closure, but more sources is enough to permit relisting for discussion in the proper forum. Given Keller's history of writing about himself, this will probably need to be policed for sourcing to make sure nobody inserts their own memory of the events in question.--Kchase T 20:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC) I provisionally restored and compared diffs. The subject wrote virtually all of the content and all the other editors just made minor changes. The single reference was added in the last edit to the article. Whatever salvageable content exists should be replaced when someone re-writes this with a proper range of sources. I return to endorsing deletion.--Kchase T 12:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC) But if I or anyone else recreates the article, it will probably be speedily deleted according to policy. Or am I misundersanding the policy here? Abu ali 13:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC) You should be ok. The existence of this DRV insulates you some from that. G4 doesn't apply to content that is "merely a new article on the same subject", and I think we're establishing here that it actually is notable, even if the AFD was valid.--Kchase T 13:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC) Relist Some referencing was added on the 5th day of the AFD, and not discussed by any of the delete opiners (the only later one said "delete per all", which is useless. More newspaper sources found and mentioned here, one of which has "155 related", so clearly got widespread coverage at that time (but I'm not going to pay to read all those to see whether it was a single wire story covered widely or several wire stories, or actual articles by each paper). Relist for an evaluation of the sources in the proper forum. GRBerry 16:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Endorse Deletion. The closer properly determined that the argument that this is vanity spam to make a point was not refuted. The fact of some coverage in a newspaper is not a requirement that an article be kept (if it is, we will theoretically eventually end up with literally a million articles on passing events). I did not comment in the original AfD but this article is clearly way, way too much information about an ephemeral event and was close properly in my opinion. Herostratus 21:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Endorse deletion as process was properly followed, and besides, the right thing to do from an editorial standpoint is to let someone who is not Adam Keller write this article. JChap2007 00:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC) Weakly endorse deletion (process was apparently carried out reasonably), without prejudice against WP:NPOV and WP:V recreation by someone who isn't Adam Keller nor someone acting on his behalf (nor someone acting against him). I would be in favor of a Relist if the closing admin finds the new sources sufficient for that. I don't know many of the facts, especially whether major magazines have included featured coverage that shows probable "lasting influence" as compared to "only passing attention". Wikipedia is not Wikinews and doesn't need to cover every once-a-decade controversy unless the topic has significant historical effect upon its field. Barno 01:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC) But some of the sources cited above are 15 years after the event. Surely this shows that that the court-martial recieved more than pasing attention? Abu ali 08:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Not automatically; it depends upon the content. Many newspapers and magazines have small-print filler sections of what went on five, ten, fifteen, twenty years ago. If the newer articles demonstrate that the court-martial itself had a lot of lasting influence, then (when properly cited) they should help the relist end as "Keep". If they only show it drew attention as part of the broader situation, and didn't drive much change or serve as the focus for a popular movement, then the reviewing editors should support a merge to some article like "Anti-war protest in Israel". Barno 04:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC) Hmmmmmm. I think that a brief article on this subject could be supported, based on the few available sources that satisfy Wikipedia rules. The article in the form that was deleted was not acceptable because it did not pass the verifiability rules. Mr Keller's personal recollections are interesting, but we are required to only add material that comes from published sources and cited so that other people can check those sources. I would think that a new article which obeys the rules would probably survive deletion attempts. It would be much briefer though. Incidentally, here is the complete text relevant to the Keller case that appeared in JP 19 Dec 1995, p6: "According to Ha'aretz (May 6, 1988), Peace Now activist Adam Keller vandalized Israeli army tanks during his tour of reserve duty, to protest Israel's presence in the territories." It isn't any use for article writing, and isn't even acceptable as a source in my opinion because it is actually a letter to the editor from the chairman of Americans for a Safe Israel. There seems to be a much more useful article in JP, 25 Feb 1990 but I can't read it due to a database error. --Zerotalk 03:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC) Comment "Court martials are rare events in Israel, and normally do not occur more than once in 10 years" - if this were true, either the IDF must be by an incredible margin the best-disciplined military in the world or enforcement of IDF regulations is very lax. However, even leaving aside the other violations of military regulations that one may be court martialled for, being court martialled for violation of regulations in the name of conscientious objection while a member of the IDF is a much more frequent event than is suggested by the petitioner. According to the Courage to Refuse campaign over 280 IDF members who are part of the campaign have been court martialled for refusing to serve in occupied Palestinian territories since 2002 Bwithh 21:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC) Thanks for pointing out an error in my original statement. I should have said political court matials. Mr Keller was kind enough to answer my query on this question and I will take the liberty of quoting his rely here. There are two systems of judging soldiers. "Disciplinary proceeding" by a commanding officer, held in camera in his bureau without lawyers or witenesses and with the punishment restricted to 28 days, is very common. A full court martial, with three judges of whom at least one must be a jurist, which is held in public with lawyers and witnesses and press coverage, can give a much longer sentence but it can (and is) used for political speeches and gets considerable attention.That is why the army resorts to it only once a decade or so, and each case is memorable, is noticed by the press and by peace activists who make an effort to be present. The 280 cases that are refered to are of "disciplinary" instant trials in camera, not full court martials. The army does often use the full court martial against soldiers who broke discipline for non-political reasons (for example, desertion, being rude to an officer etc.). In non-political cases, the army feels free because they get no press attention. Abu ali 09:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Endorse deletion as above. From searching around, an article on Adam Keller himself focusing much more on his role as a Israeli peace activist would seem to be more appropriate. From Factiva (which goes back to 1988 (though the further back you go, the patchier it gets - 1988 is very patchy at the moment)), there are a number articles mentioning Keller , and the one or two which are profiles of him mention the court martials but don't treat them as the defining or key reason why he's significant, so I don't think an article just about his court martial is in order. Bwithh 22:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC) I would agree that the court martial is not Keller's most significant event in his long history in the peace movement. But that does not necessarily imply that the court martial is not notable. We have seen above that the court matial is turing up in references 15 years after the event [[5]]. Whether Keller as an individual is notable and whether an article about him should be written is an interesting question, but not the one which we are discussing here. Abu ali 08:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Restore The event is certainly notable. It is covered in the standard literature on the Intifada – eg in Andrew Rigby,"Living the Intifada" (Zed Press, 1991), p 185. Rigby cites Al-Fajr 26 February 1990. The trial was covered in the Israeli press, but it is even harder finding a twenty-year old Hebrew article than an English one; the Haaretz online archive, for instance, goes back only to 1994. The event is notable not only in terms of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and of the Israeli peace movement; it is remarkable in anyone's terms. Writing graffiti on 117 tanks, as well as the officers' mess and toilets — and a long slogan too, not just one or two words — is surely unprecedented in peace and protest movements anywhere. In fact, I think that Adam Keller deserves a Wikipedia article of his own. He is the spokesperson of Gush Shalom, the editor of The Other Israel, a long-standing activist in Yesh Gvul, a pioneer of Israeli meetings with the PLO, and author of the excellent study of Israel "Terrible Days". And if we do this, the court martial (and his other spells in gaol) will certainly be relevant. RolandR 23:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Comment Do we have a rought consensus that the court-martial was a notable event? If so the main argument for deletion is that the article's subject made many of the edits himslef. This is discouraged by the policy WP:AB. The WP:Autobiography policy states You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest. Wikipedia has gone through many prolonged disputes about the significance, factual accuracy, and neutrality of such articles, including one about Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia [1]. Refraining from such editing is therefore important in maintaining Wikipedia's neutral stance and in avoiding the appearance of POV-pushing. This does not mean, however, that it is impossible to write a neutral, verifiable autobiography, or that they are strictly forbidden. (my emphasis added). Keller should have refrained from writing an article about an event which he was so personally involved in. But if you examine his edits to the article you will find that he was absolutely meticulous in maintaining a neutral point of view and avoiding any form of self-aggrandizement. In fact a large part of the article is made up of direct quotation of the arguments of the military prosecutor. I therefore think that undeleting the article would be the best course of action. It would allow the sources uneathed in this discussion to be added and allow the article to be ruthelessly purged of anything which fails WP:NPOV or Wikipedia:Verifiability. Abu ali 10:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC) I think it would be a viable option to restore this as a redirect to Adam Keller and you can create an article on the person and canabilize material from the old version of this article and properly source it as you go (thus addressing GFDL concerns about keeping the edit history there to preserve attribution history). I'm not comfortable keeping any of the author's version unless it gets properly sourced, but if you want to do that, more power to you. I'd just feel better if that happened slowly as a new article gets built, rather than being restored in full and then potentially have little unsourced bits remain.--Kchase T 12:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC) I have now created an article on Adam Keller. It is a stub, which needs more work. But the bare bones are there, including reference to the court martial. He is certainly a notable-enough person to merit a Wikipedia entry. RolandR 13:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC) new article its clear from the comments above that the matter in N, and that RS are present, because the discussion has moved on to the qy of the actions of the IDF. . But, Roland R has the solution--for others than RK to do an article on RK, affording him the usual BLP courtesies. This article will be more suitable than the old one in all respects. DGG 06:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC) I agree that we seem to have a consensus about notability and reliable sources regarding the court-martial. I would also agree that the subject of the court martial is notable enough for a biographical article. But the question of whether these two articles should be merged is something that I have not been convinced about, and is really a separate discussion. Abu ali 15:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

List of syndicated broadcasters of Futurama – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 07:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:La (restore|AfD) The article was split from the main Futurama article in accordance with Wikipedia:Summary style, I don't have time to check Wikipedia all the time as I have a life, so I was not able to bring this point up in the AFD discussion. Suoerh2 07:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Endorse deletion, AfD was perfectly proper. This is an encyclopaedia, not a television schedule. Guy (Help!) 08:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Check your facts, a list of syndicaters is not a television schedule, get your facts straight, otherwise your vote doesn't count. Suoerh2 08:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC) O RLY? Guy (Help!) 15:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC) If Wikipedia intends for people to follow it's policies, then deleting this article sends the wrong message. Pretty soon people will not want to split off sections from long articles into new articles for fear that some Wikipedian who has no idea what he is talking about finds the new article, thinks its "trivial" and deletes it. Sometimes, with summary style, your going to get article that aren't full of a huge amount of content, but that is just something you have to live with if you want to use the summary style. If nothing else, then please restore the text of the article to the Futurama page (where is lived for a long time with no problem) and let the editors of that page decide if the information belongs or not, not some elistish snobby Wikipedians who troll deletion review (thats what they are). Suoerh2 08:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Comment: Please be reminded that Deletion review is not AFD round 2. The deletion review is more about judging process than result. Could you indicate why you believe that certain processes were not followed properly? Is there any information that was not considered during the AFD? AecisBravado 10:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Endorse deletion. This reminds me of arguments against deleting fancruft which follow the lines of "But we split this out from the main article, so it must be good!" -Amark moo! 15:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Endorse my deletion per unanimous AFD. --Coredesat 17:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Endorse deletion Unanimous AFD. Not a TV guide was the prod reason. After you had the article undeleted as an after the fact contested prod, you should have improved the article to address the concern. This was not done in the fortnight after the article was restored, the AFD was unanimous, and the argument offered here does not constitute a reason for keeping the content - it is either appropriate for an encyclopedia or not, and whether it started as a separate list or was spun out from the main article isn't relevant. Content that won't survive spun out as a sub-article probably shouldn't exist in the main article either. GRBerry 18:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Endorse deletion per WP:SNOW, if nothing else. The nom offered WP:NOT, which is core policy, as a deletion reason and it includes TV guide as one of the things that Wikipedia is not. (WP:V seems invalid, as this information would be easy to verify through TV listings) However, it would make me more comfortable if the nom had noted that "TV guide" was the specific thing that WP was not and if all of the !votes had not been "per nom." JChap2007 00:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC) remerge the pertinent material into main article--if it was removed for fear the main article was overlong but it has been found that by itself it is not sufficient. If anyone objects to it being there, cite this DelRev. DGG 06:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Endorse closure of this unanimous discussion. If the editors at the main article decide (on the article's Talk page) that there is consensus to bring this detail back in, it can be merged and redirected via a history-only undeletion (above). Until they reach such consensus, leave the page deleted. Rossami (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Charles C. Poindexter – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 07:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:La (restore|AfD) Notable Subject. Reasonable amount of time for expansion. Passes Google test and founder of group that became prominant fraternity Alpha Phi Alpha. [6] Notability was established at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charles_C._Poindexter. MrDouglass 01:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Sigh. It was a legitimate G5 when the sock made it, who initiated the creation after that, because those G4s are a problem for me. If it's not a sock/banned user who recreated the G4 deletions, undelete. If it was, can I request userfication to clean it up and make it legit, since "notability" appears to be established in the linked AfD? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Our DRV nominator has done all three recreations. I have no basis for an opinion whether G5 would still apply, although I can see that others are suspicious, I don't have the knowledge base to tell myself because my mop is still too clean and shiny. If you think notability was shown, I hope that means the AFD revealed adequate sources, and you could just use them. GRBerry 02:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Strong undelete. G4 does not apply to speedies, and if it did, it certainly would not apply to a speedy criteria that doesn't even judge the article. -Amark moo! 02:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Comment I was one of the deleting admins. I have a very strong suspicion that MrDouglass is, in fact, a sock of a banned user, Mykungfu, since he showed up less than 24 hours after the article was first deleted and the then-most-recent sock of Mykungfu was blocked and re-created the article. That's not a coincidence. His first edit to another mainspace article was to Ku Klux Klan; one of Mykungfu's earlier socks was McGrandWizard (Grand Wizard is the title of the head of the KKK). I have no objection to undeletion per se, but to another attempt by Mykungfu to game the system. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC) If the article is bad, it won't survive an AfD. If it is not, surely it shouldn't matter who you suspect wrote it. -Amark moo! 02:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Surely it does matter. Banned or blocked users are not allowed to create articles; it's speedy deletion criterion G5. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Well MrDarcy has now listed MrDouglass as a sockpuppet of Mykungfu. [7] Lets see if there is any valid proof with this one. 172.164.250.29 21:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Quite fortunately, G5 does not apply to suspicions. If it is established that he is a banned user, it's different (although I'd likely just ditch G5 then, since it looks decent), but suspecting who a user is is irrelevant. -Amark moo! 04:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC) You are mistaken. Proof by contributions is more than sufficient, and the user's contribs have made it clear to me from day one that it is Mykungfu. Proof by checkuser is not required, and in this case, since Mykungfu and all of his socks use AOL, it's not possible. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Undelete just so other users know what G3,G4 and other terms are.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion . If MrDarcy suspects me to be racist. Simply go thru my edits and see if you find any racially biased edits. Also, i thank everyone who will supports this articles undeletions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MrDouglass (talk • contribs) 04:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC). But now I don't want your thanks. Where in the world did you get the "I'm being accused of racism" card from? -Amark moo! 04:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC) from "His first edit to another mainspace article was to Ku Klux Klan; one of Mykungfu's earlier socks was McGrandWizard (Grand Wizard is the title of the head of the KKK)." of the above opinion. MrDouglass 04:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC) There's not much to undelete, just a short paragraph with a lot of weasel words and sourced solely with questionable copyright material from skipmason.com via the Google cache. Guy (Help!) 08:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Comment MrDouglass has been indef-blocked as a sock of the banned user Mykungfu (not by me). This DRV should probably be closed on that basis, but since I was the admin who originally deleted the article in question, I'm going to recuse myself. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC) Endorse Deletion We now know that WP:CSD#G5 applies per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mykungfu, and it isn't worth undeleting and redeleting to put G5 on top of the log. GRBerry 23:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC) Endorse deletion per GRBerry. Would be a valid G5. --Coredesat 02:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.