Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 November 27

GC Tooth Mousse (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article should not have been deleted, when I came across the AfD there was the nominator and one other delete vote and I provided what I feel is significant enough coverage to merit an article. After me a single other user (who based on his contribs only spent about 2 minutes considering the situation) came along and !voted delete addressing none of my sources. I would like the article to be reinstated per the following significant coverage:

• Kowalczyk, Botuliński, Jaworska, Kierklo, Pawińska, Dąbrowska. "Evaluation of the product based on RecaldentTM technology in the treatment of dentin hypersensitivity". Advances in Medical Sciences.

"The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficiency of GC Tooth Mousse in the treatment of patients with dentin hypersensitivity caused by various factors."

• A. Poitevin, M. Peumans, J. DE Munck, M. Braem, and B. Van Meerbeek. "0136 Clinical Effectiveness of a CPP-ACP Crème for Tooth Hypersensitivity Treatment".

"Objectives: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of a newly developed tooth-coating crème (GC Tooth Mousse), ....."

• D.J. Manton, P. Shen, F. Cai, N.J. Cochracn, C. Reynolds, L.B. Messer, and E.C. Reynold. "0185 Remineralisation of White Spot Lesions in situ by Tooth Mousse".

"Objectives: To investigate the potential of a commercially available dental crème containing casein phosphopeptide – amorphous calcium phosphate (CPP-ACP), ["GC Tooth Mousse" (10% w/v CPP-ACP) (GC Corp, Japan)]"

• "GC tooth mousse.(product spotlight)". Dental Products Report Europe.

Its behind a Pay per view portal but given the introduction it is a full length magazine article about the product.

• Feinmann, Jane (March 12, 2005). "This won't hurt a bit". The Times.

This article is only partially about GC Tooth Mousse, but it is still another two paragraphs of coverage.

I do realize that the article was in poor condition, which probably contributed too its deletion, but if undeleted I will do a bit of work to knock it into acceptable shape. Icewedge (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn I appreciate the nominator's wish to improve the article into some sort of valuable article. Why not see where it goes.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn per the new sources mentioned above. There is plenty there to create a verifiable aricle. MuZemike (talk) 02:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn – There are sufficient sources of sufficient depth (cited above and in the AfD itself) to establish notability as per the general notability guideline, so Icewedge's "keep" rationale effectively counters the "delete" arguments in the AfD. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. AFD is not a court of law or a debating society and one does not win or lose; rather, it is an attempt to determine whether there is a rough consensus that an article should be deleted or not. When there is but a single person arguing for an article's retention against three proposing its deletion, deletion is the correct outcome. Only when the numbers on each side are close or equal should the closing administrator judge which arguments are more based in policy. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment – I would say that it's not so clear-cut in this case. Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus even says, Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy and also states, If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, said argument is no longer relevant. I would have been more convinced that the consensus was to delete if the other contributors to the discussion had addressed the sources Icewedge mentioned. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure that guide you quote reflects current practice. Stifle (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Deletion review is also to be used "if significant new information has come to light"(from the principle purpose of DR section), new information has come to light, i.e. I have presented two more full length sources aside from the three I presented in the AfD. Icewedge (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. There was no procedural error in the AfD and the closure drew a reasonable interpretation of consensus. Per the deletion policy the best approach now is for the requestor to create the article again making sure notability is clearly established ("If you think that an article was wrongly deleted, you can recreate the article. If you do decide to recreate it... show that your new, improved work mets Wikipedia article policies."). Obviously userfication of the page to assist is an option. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 10:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I did think about just recreating but I have had my work hit with CSD G4 before (even after more than a year had passed, and this is just a few days) and given the development of the article I think that a simple recreation is not the best option. If a one sentence article with no references gets deleted, that closure contains very little prejudice against recreation, however if a reasonably developed article with several sources gets deleted that does contain some prejudice against recreation. Also, I do assert that the AfD was closed incorrectly. I think that of the options available to Cirt she should have re-listed, I originally went her to request just that (but she declined) as, given that that all the sources were presented after all but one delete vote, consensus had not yet formed on whether or not the sources I found were a valid justification for an article. I feel confident that if it had been relisted a keep consensus would have developed. Icewedge (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and allow recreation - The close was within discretion. In view of the substantial new information above, plus Find sources: "Tooth Mousse" — search, news, books, scholar, images , and that experienced editor (first post 12 October 2006) Icewedge plans to work on the article to put it acceptable shape, allow recreation. -- Suntag ☼ 16:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn There were already enough references at the time of deletion to support keeping. The closer did not take account of the changes. DGG (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Agree with Stifle (talk · contribs) and QuiteUnusual (talk · contribs). Will defer to consensus of community. Cirt (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn While I usually respect Cirt's judgement, in this case the arguments should outweigh the headcount. There was a reliable source put forward, and there were no arguments for deletion which addressed that. If there had been an argument made that the source wasn't suitable, that's one thing, but there wasn't anything to oppose it. So, strangely enough, the correct close would've been "Keep", despite the majority of "delete" !votes.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not advocating Overturn since for all I know WLU evaluated sourcing and factored that into his reading of the arguments, which it seems to me an admin has a right to do if his judgment is generally good when doing so. But I comment to reject totally the arguments of Stifle and Cirt, that given this sequence of events discussion should be closed per a headcount. I'm not that bothered that it throws out a major philosophical plank on which Wikipedia operates, but it's so completely illogical and counter to best practice that I can't quite believe they support it. What circumstances, if not this one, does closing become not about a headcount? When the sources are supplied in the third-last comment and not the penultimate one? When there are five involved and not four? The thing makes no sense. You go by the principle that some comments can outweigh others or you don't: you believe the encyclopedia is best served by going by that principle or you don't. 86.44.24.253 (talk) 00:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

List of problems solved by MacGyver (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD|AfD 2|AfD 3)

Hi I would like to ask for deletion review of this article. I have discussed this with the admin who suggested that I bring this up here.

Many of the delete arguments were based on the idea that the article largely or entirely consists of fancruft. When I go to WP:FANCRUFT and read the very first sentence: Fancruft is a term sometimes used in Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question. Based on that I don't see how this article could be called fancruft, as it is important even to people (such as myself) who find the actual show unwatchable.

The unique characteristic of the MacGyver character to demonstrate exceptional resourcefulness has transcended the show and even the character. This trait has become a part of ordinary society (in the U.S. at least) to the point where the word "MacGyver" is sometimes used as a verb when discussing situations where resourcefulness is required or demonstrated.

I'd also like to offer admittedly anecdotal information that I feel helps illustrate my point, if one looks at the amazon.com page for "The Unofficial MacGyver How-To Handbook" and looks at the list of other items purchased with the book as well as purchased by the purchasers of the book there is only one item that is actual MacGyver related fiction (6th season DVD set) while most are other books fall unto the resourcefulness category (i.e. "Sneaky Uses for Everyday Things"). I do feel that this helps show that people who find this content important are not necessarily fans of the show but are looking for information on the practice of resourcefulness that the MacGyver character has become the archetypal example of.

Regarding notability, there were several citations of books related to this subject in the AfD debate. The administrator noted these but felt that they did not suitably establish notability. Based on my understating of [[1]] I would think that these cittions should establiish sufficient notability.

In any case another search that is related to the one above but I don't believe is especially anecdotal. Looking at the search results for an amazon.com books search for the word "MacGyver" you will find the first page dominated by resourcefulness guides. Looking at subsequent pages, specifically the excerpts of the various fiction and non fiction books the reference to MacGyver is nearly universally used in reference to being resourceful. Literally dozens of published books showing the word MacGyver in that context with very few using the word MacGyver to refer to the show, the character or even the actor who portrayed the character. Thank You. - Raitchison (talk) 05:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

NOTE - After the delete close, closer Tim Vickers agreeded to let the article be merged instead of deleted.[2] A. Nobody then merged the material.[3] The merge is identified in the history of List of problems solved by MacGyver by Tim Vickers.[4] -- Suntag ☼ 08:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm going to have to go for an overturn to no consensus, because there was none. Although I'm massively against the article, this discussion is about whether the AFD was closed correctly, and I can't conclude that it was. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

  Endorse the current state of affairs (merged). Stifle (talk) 13:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• I support overturn to no consensus at least, and the restoration of this article per above, and I think the article should be kept also and would participate in any future AfD, and try to improve the article. Verbal chat 11:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I was missed the merge, but I think the decision should still be updated. Verbal chat 18:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
• The deleting admin seems to have merged and or redirected to the main MacGyver article on request. I think that is a suitable solution, but the close needs to be corrected to say no consensus. He correctly noted how three people mentioned several sources that establish the topic as notable, but went on to make a value judgement on their credibility before he closed. There were plenty of solid reasons at either side of the debate, but he didn't seem to have considered a merge when he made the close either. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I missed the debate by mere minutes, and was composing a brilliant keep argument that would have been backed up by the very words and policy positions of the most prolific deletionist voice. Had the closing admin known about my intentions, he may very well have closed the discussion as keep. However, he's only permitted to base a decision upon the arguments presented, and I think he made an appropriate call which he backed up with his reasoning. It is entirely appropriate that he weighed the value of the arguments made; otherwise, it would just be a vote. He correctly ignored the repetitive arguments and discounted the ones that merely expressed opinion. In his view (and mine), there weren't any convincing arguments presented about why this information was an appropriate list. I gave the admin a barnstar for a his close, and if it's overturned I will argue to keep the article, but DRV isn't a chance to reargue the merits of the article.--otherlleft^{No, really, other way . . .} 13:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • This argument seems to go against the some very fundamental policies of Wikipedia:
    • Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy: Missing a supposed deadline by three minutes should not result in a final decision that cannot be overturned, and it should not be a reason that your keep argument should not be heard. (Personally, I've conviced an admin to relist an AfD that had been already closed as delete after I gave my keep argument.)
    • Ignore all rules: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. If the article should have been kept, and you have a strong argument for that, no supposed rule should have prevented you from making that argument.
    • Consensus can change: No decision in Wikipedia is final and any decision is always open to review. If you believe that DRV is not a chance to reargue the merits of the article, then what, pray tell, is the proper forum for determining if consensus has changed regarding an article which may have been properly deleted at the time, but now due to new arguments or information should not remain deleted?
  • I'm assuming that you are telling the truth in that you actually had a strong argument to keep the article, so why not tell us what that argument was, regardless of whether you believe it should have any bearing on the outcome of this DRV? DHowell (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• Do nothing - given the article has been merged, and this seems to be a sensible compromise, what is the point of this deletion review? PhilKnight (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion relevent content has been merged and the close was good as far as I can see. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn You nutcases! This article was deleted? This is something I tell my friends about. Damn you lot that deleted this.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• And you believe this diatribe is appropriate to Wikipedia...how exactly? Endorse result. The article is correctly no longer free-standing and whether the closing statement says "delete" or "no consensus" is of little or no concern. Otto4711 (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, hi. I'm regularly wicked in AfDs and deletion reviews. I've had bad experiences with this lot and I always get my way eventually. There is a tendency to be inconsiderate towards others' interests when they appear to consist of "garbage" to them. Really, this article has to be resurrected.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse — I see nothing wrong with the closing admin discounting WP:ATA arguments and focusing those rooted in policy and guidelines. MuZemike (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

  I would just like to disclose that MuZemike left a sort of note/warning/observation on my talk page. Now, now, uhhh.... now, really? Really, this article could actually be deleted? Notwithstanding the raging pedantry I'm seeing here and I'm sure I would've found in the original AfD were I to read it, isn't this Macgyver-specific article the reason why Wikipedia thrives? Uhhh... I'm feeling noxious dealing with this but really, this article can actually be deleted?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• overturn Multiple editors gave examples of reliable sources that discuss precisely the issues here. The fact that many people also called for keeping based on bad reasoning doesn't help matters. There's more than enough sourcing. It appears from the debate that the bad reasons caused editors to react in a negative fashion. That should be a lesson to people: adding in bad logic can hurt your case more than keeping silent. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

  Hi. That sounds like a sensible decision and not at all incorrect. Anyone around here watched the latest Bond movie? It's awesome. It will make you want to re-watch Casino Royale. Alright, I'm glad consensus is moving along here. I've written an article on the essay "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" if anyone is interested. Check it out. It needs reviewing and perhaps a little copyediting.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 03:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse the merge close - If there is consensus on Talk:MacGyver, the merged material can be spunout into List of problems solved by MacGyver. -- Suntag ☼ 08:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I don't like "fancruft" as an argument because it gets under too many people's skin. That's why my original delete !vote was written to avoid this, and why my counterarguments to the keep !votes were written to avoid this, too. Many of the keep arguments were not grounded in policies and guidelines and tended to shrug off WP:PLOT, which insists on a plot summary in the context of real-world context. This article did not accomplish that. It was an indiscriminate collection of every occurrence of the TV series's key gimmick. A half dozen examples on the main TV series article in the appropriate section could have easily given a reader an idea of how MacGyver solves his problems (MacGyverisms). We could easily include the MacGyverism books in a "Further reading" section of the main article since they did not really explore the real-world context, typically explaining the instructions to solving the problem. The books don't merit an article that had 70 kb worth of indiscriminate plot detail... it was specifically titled to be nothing but that. If it was "Problems solved by MacGyver", maybe there would be room for a limited selection backed by scientific plausibility (or lack thereof). Again, this information could be covered in MacGyver#MacGyverisms. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

  Oh, for my mighty oat somebody better list those books clearly in the MacGyver article. I admit it is better that people pick up those books, but there was no harm in the List Of article.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• I added a "Further reading" section with this, but this one does not seem geared toward MacGyverisms specifically. Just talks about instances that are similar to how MacGyver solved problems, and I don't think that there is an explicit comparison. The article also has a couple of "MacGyverism" external links that seem to have even more examples off-wiki, so I still feel that a limited selection in the main article is enough to show readers instances of MacGyverisms. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn to no-consensus. I think that represent the state of things-- this was one fiction AfD I did not participate in , because I could not decide my own position on it. In any case, how complete it should be is a qy for the talk page. There has to be consensus to delete--the default is against deletion. DGG (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse well-reasoned and accurate close. WP:ILIKEIT never trumps policy. Wikipedia appeared to be blazing the trail in documenting this subject, which is always a bad sign. This kind of content really belongs on a fan-wiki, not an encyclopaeida, because so little of it is sourceable in the terms used from any kind of reliable source.; virtually any such list will fall into the same trap as most episode guide articles, of being sourced entirely fomr personal observation of the primary sources. Guy (Help!) 18:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• Reluctantly endorse the current state Whether we like it or not, these are the sorts of articles that make Wikipedia fascinating to outsiders. I would prefer that we have the same article with cited sources and some sign that we aren't the publisher of first instance. If that can be done, this article can and should be spun out. Since it wasn't done at the time of the AfD and consensus there appeared to resolve around merging the content, I can endorse that outcome. We should edit these articles so they can make us proud, not ignore them until the time comes to circle the wagons and "fight the deletionists". That only results in crappy articles and bad blood. Protonk (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion but support undelete/merge the close seems to be well reasoned reading of consensus based on the content of the AfD discussion but there isn't anything in the discussion that would seem to preclude the verifiable information being merged into the parent article. Guest9999 (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

  I vehemently disagree. I think this article should be spun out and left to build.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

  I think you've already made that clear with your above comments. The article had been spun out and left to develop for more than three years without being built up enough for there to be a consensus for it to be kept. Guest9999 (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

  So? The show isn't recent so you're not going to get the same level of participation as for some of the other TV shows. In the next two or three years someone might show up and work it up but if they don't see the article then how are they going to do that?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

  A lot of users with knowledge of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria and a track record of finding good sources for borderline topics have already tried to develop the article without being able to form a consensus accepted article. With this in mind I don't think that currently it would be possible to create such an article. If the situation changes in the future any interested editor can work on the section in the main article which could then be split off or start a new article afresh - as any editor new or experienced can do with any (sub)article. Guest9999 (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

  This is outrageous! Given that there is such interest in this topic why aren't there any reliable sources and why if there really aren't any reliable sources isn't some journalist/writer creature creating the reliable source we need? Maybe The New Yorker should be petitioned or some other publication. Yes, let's start a petition.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse current state of affairs. The AFD has already been updated to note the re-merge. Nothing further needs to be done. If future consensus on Talk:MacGyver is that the list has become well-sourced enough to be its own article, then by all means, spin it out. Until then, consensus is clear.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus. There was no consensus to delete in that AFD. And TimVickers appears to be misinformed, because Wikipedia has no "notability policy" — so it's impossible that the comments by "those feeling that the article failed our notability policy" outweighed the comments by those who pointed to evidence of notability (nevermind that the editor who rewrote WP:N and made it a guideline is the same editor who changed WP:DGFA to say "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument." — and, like Eris, has apparently left the building.) WP:DGFA and WP:N are both guidelines and WP:ATA is an essay (and a bad one at that). --Pixelface (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus. Hard to see delete as the consensus on the AfD and even with the merge - which seems to be just a delete 2.0 here - Wikipedia is not better off for removing this. Wikipedia handles pop culture subjects quite well in many cases and this spin-off article certainly seems notable and sourceable. Oodles of pop culture references abound even after the show was canceled. But just sticking to judging the AfD? Not clearly a delete and now the communities' energies have been spent to reiterate what was expressed fairly enough. -- Banjeboi 13:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion to no consensus (already done) but take no further administrative action with respect to the current redirect and take discussion to Talk:MacGyver about whether this should be a separate article or whether it should be merged as a section of the MacGyver article. I've argued and I believe that reliable sources would support a separate article, but until someone is actually willing to use those sources to build it up perhaps there should not be a separate article and any relevant information should remain in or be merged into the main show article. DHowell (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, and restore talk page, though I have no opinion on whether the talk page should remain separate or be redirected to Talk:MacGyver. DHowell (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

American Nihilist Underground Society (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD | AFD2 | AFD3 | AFD4 | AFD5 | AFD6)

Notable: mentioned in Spin, The New Yorker, Houston Press, and numerous death metal publications; controversial (which is why some editors have an axe to grind against it) but notable, especially since it has been on the web since 1993 and active, one of the founding and oldest underground metal sites. death metal maniac (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• ANUS has been deleted time and time again. What's the problem now? ANUS, or the American Nihilist Underground Society, has published several articles on Nihilism. One, "How a Nihilist Lives," was reprinted in print zine "Air in the Paragraph Line," issue 10. 24.57.119.120 (talk) 04:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
• Do Wikipedia talk pages count as notability? ANUS must surpass a huge portion of the "accepted" articles here, in that regard. 70.108.21.57 (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
• Wikipedia editors would ideally be unbiased, but it seems that those who find ANUS offensive are quite adamant about deleting the article, despite the fact that ANUS gets thousands of visitors a day, has been around for two decades now, and appeals to devotees of varying topics, including heavy metal culture, traditionalist thought, radical environmentalism, and philosophical nihilism. Just because you don't like it personally doesn't mean it shouldn't have a small space here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.167.232 (talk) 04:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. There was a unanimous agreement to delete the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Nihilist Underground Society (6th nomination) and no reason has been presented why this should be changed. DRV is not AFD round 2 (or 7). Stifle (talk) 09:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Unanimous agreement of three votes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.119.120 (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - the nominator has not demonstrated either a procedural error by the closing admin nor presented any substantive new information that would suggest that the article should be restored. The closing admin correctly interpreted the discussion and as noted DRV is not AFD round 2 (or 8). Otto4711 (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Procedural error: sources of note were ignored. Complete list here. As seen in previous AFDs, a few editors with a clear bias were the source and extent of the discussion, as is the case with "blackmetalbaz" who dislikes our taste in black metal while promoting Nazi black metal bands on Wikipedia. death metal maniac (talk) 04:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
    • It appears to me that the editors considered those sources and found them unsatisfactory. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• Indeed, nor is it the job of the closing admin to evaluate sources independent of the analysis given within the AFD. This is not a procedural error. I suggest writing a draft with sources that are substantively about the organization in compliance with WP:N and WP:RS on a subpage of your user page. Note that simply being mentioned in a Top 25 list and the like does not constitute appropriate sourcing. Otto4711 (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse — DRV is not a re-hash of the AFD. MuZemike (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, AfD was closed correctly in line with the clear consensus generated by the discussion. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Close within discretion, proper process followed. MBisanz ^talk 19:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Consensus at the AFD was clear. Ok, it was a small number of editors, but there's no such thing as a quorum on Wikipedia. If you can find better sources than the ones that were in the article, you can give it a shot.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)