Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 29: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Wikipedia:Eleventy-billion pool et al. - Deletion endorsed.
Perimeter Mall - Deletion endorsed.
Line 36: Line 36:
**Ditto. In addition to what Coredsat says, I add that the current version was apparently based only on unreliable sources. Therefore, I'd rather allow recreation than supporting undeletion. '''Unsalt''' [[User talk:Tizio|Tizio]] 14:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
**Ditto. In addition to what Coredsat says, I add that the current version was apparently based only on unreliable sources. Therefore, I'd rather allow recreation than supporting undeletion. '''Unsalt''' [[User talk:Tizio|Tizio]] 14:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


====[[Perimeter Mall]]====
:{{la|Perimeter Mall}}
A number of malls have cropped up in deletion review recently; I get the [[WP:NOT]] principle, but one can write a mall article w/o making it a business directory. One could write an article about Perimeter Mall describing its origins as part of the Spruill farm in Dunwoody, how it became the anchor of an edge city clustered around it, the food-court shooting spree incident in the early '90s and how it dragged the center of economic gravity in Atlanta to the north -- none of which deals in boosterism or plugs of Macy's or such. I fail to see how deletion works better in this instance than starting a discussion about percieved commercialism, reaching for consensus, and giving editors a good-faith opportunity to fix the article's (perceived) flaws.


To play devil's advocate, what rationale for deletion of this article -- and all articles about malls -- leaves unscathed the article about the roughly equivalent [[Tysons Corner Center]] -- or articles about [[Water Tower Place]], [[Country Club Plaza]] (which the article should have noted is one of the first instances of a shopping center oriented around the automobile), or, say, [[State Universal Store]] or [[Harrods]]? --[[User:GGreeneVa|GGreeneVa]] 00:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
* As with the other malls I deleted as part of {{user|Dvac}}'s spamming campaign, tis was a directory entry with no evident sources other than the subject's own website. [[WP:OR]], [[WP:NOT]], [[WP:SPAM]]. Feel free to nominate any similar articles. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 07:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

* ''"But one can write a mall article w/o making it a business directory."'' sure you can the question is, was this article more than a business directory and has anyone provided anything reasonable to suggest that it can? ''"One could write an article about Perimeter Mall describing.."'' Sure got multiple third party [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] on which such an article can be based? ''"I fail to see how deletion works.."'' you can say that about any deletion we don't keep stuff waiting indefinitely for someone to make it a good article, the deletion of the article isn't stopping anyone discussing the problems and coming up with a good article, when they do they can recreate the page with that good article and at that point it may stay or someone may still wish to put it up for deletion, Malls don't have a special status which exempts them from the same treatment as any other subject on wikipedia. As for the old [[WP:INN|we have other stuff which could be deleted on the same basis]] feel free to evaluate them against the required standard s (NOR, NPOV, V, RS etc. etc.) and nominate for deletion as appropriate. --[[User_talk:Pgk|pgk]] 09:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

*The nominator is correct that Perimeter Mall is a very significant mall, along with Lennox Square, in northern Atlanta. The "dragging the center north" is absolutely not correct, but, aside from that, there ''could'' be an article on the subject. That said, it is important yet again to point out that it was ''an article'' that was deleted, not a topic. '''Endorse deletion''' with no prejudice toward an article that establishes its notability with citations to unambiguous facts. At present, we are getting malls qua malls, like roads for roads' sake, and yet malls are commercial institutions that, by themselves, merely generate income for developers and speculators. Cumberland Mall is was bypassed in Atlanta, once being significant, and Phipps Plaza became irrelevant, once being a magnet, and Gwinnett Place does huge business but followed population rather than led it. (BTW, Dunwoody was the highest income zipcode in the south ''before'' Perimeter expanded the first time, and local developing restrictions kept it small, while the junction of GA 400 near Perimeter made it a convenient stopping point.) [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 13:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


====[[Japanense football squad templates]]====
====[[Japanense football squad templates]]====

Revision as of 07:44, 5 December 2006

< November 28 November 30 >
Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November)


29 November 2006

Jeffree Star

Jeffree Star (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (AfD, [1], DRV)

Jeffree Star is a celebrity like any other. He has been on television and is releasing a record. But ignorant fools have deleted the article because he is too controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooljuno411 (talk • contribs)

  • Without being able to see the article, but looking at the eight previous deletions, I'd suggest that Cooljuno411 should really be considering providing reliable sources that actually confirm the subject's notability rather than calling other editors ignorant fools and fucking pricks. Please take a look at WP:BIO and keep the guidelines in mind when making an argument about this article. Endorse deletion unless someone proves otherwise. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given that some sources have turned up below that actually look relatively reasonable, I have no issue with the article being unprotected so somebody can create a sourced article. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Tony Fox. No process violation apparent. Sandstein 05:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion yet again but unsalt per sources below, there is no process violation here, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If reliable sources attesting to notability per WP:MUSIC (as of right now, not in some point in the future) can be presented, I might change my mind, but for now, no. The histories of the previous articles should remain deleted, however (most of them were fan fluff and horribly non-neutral articles without sources). --Coredesat 08:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as usual. Allegations of censorship are entirely misplaced, this person is slightly famous for being slightly famous but no credible sources have yet been advanced to justify inclusion. Guy (Help!) 09:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still no sources? Still endorse deletion. Provide sources, we might change our minds. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Damn crystal-ballism aside, knowing full well that this person will eventually be notable enough for an article in the not-too-distant future, I do hope that these constant DRVs don't poison the well when the time finally occurs. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Avoiding constant recreations of the article before that time in the future may also help. Tizio 18:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, if a random person comes around and sees we don't have an article on someone who a) is notable, but b) doesn't meet our standards isn't really at fault for trying to fix that. I'm just hoping those of us who have seen this DRV for the third time won't be biased against it when it comes up for the fourth. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wonder if the random person's notion of notabililty (=being worth of an encyclopedia article) is already held by them before coming here or is induced by the number of article on semi-notable borderline non-notable people we have around. Or maybe it's just "being a website" the problem: everyone can create a page on a website, why are you deleting the one I created? Tizio 19:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Contrary to popular belief, wearing women's clothing does not automatically lead to fame. Half the world's population indulges in such behaviour and the vast majority are not notable. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Only half? Is that all!? Endorse for the above reasons. Chris cheese whine 19:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion still (again?). We keep hearing "is releasing" or "will release" a record. Come back when that's "has released" and it has significant reviews and sales. Right now still seems to be garden variety myspace "celebrity". Fan-1967 15:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Fan-1967 15:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, list at AfD. Noting that this still has yet to get a full hearing at AfD, I note that Mr/Ms Star now meets whichever guideline (WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC) that s/he hasn't in the past. Note the non-trivial media stories available here and here and here. We have been successfully fooling ourselves into thinking that he's not actually "notable" or "famous" or whatever, but now that some "mainstream" coverage is coming into play, we should give it a full hearing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I still endorse the deletion, given that most of the deleted articles were fan fluff, but given those sources, I've added a note supporting unprotecting the article from recreation. --Coredesat 22:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ditto. In addition to what Coredsat says, I add that the current version was apparently based only on unreliable sources. Therefore, I'd rather allow recreation than supporting undeletion. Unsalt Tizio 14:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Japanense football squad templates


Lists of Half-Life mods

List of Half-Life mods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Half-Life 2 mods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In chronological order, from newest to oldest:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of Half-Life mods (delete)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Half-Life mods (delete)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Half-Life 2 mods (keep)

When debate was closed, the closer determined that the reigning majority of Keep votes were sockpuppetry, and determined to close the debate with a "Delete" stamp. Direct violation of WP:AGF and standard deletion policy. Note: 13 keeps, 9 deletes... Fair is fair. WaltCip 21:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse close on a quick review of the quality of arguments. Half-Life is notable, modding is notable, individual Half-Life mods are not, and this article appeared to be drawn largely from original research despite appearances otherwise. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion the AFD linked only had 14 distinct edits, so how 13 were keep is beyond me (it certainly isn't what it shows now). WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, or call to shut your eyes and hope. Wikipedia's goals to be a free, npov encylopedia that comes first before being "fair". --pgk 21:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information For your information, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Half-Life mods is the old AfD discussion. There was a second one, here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of Half-Life mods. (Note the appended 's' because in the new AfD discussion two lists were covered.) --Pizzahut2 21:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have a recent copy of the deleted article, but take this, add five mods similar to the entry on this early rewrite of the article, plus a section about multiplayer stats. Also think two awards per single player mod, and a mod of the year ranking for the multiplayer mods. Then you have approximately the article which has been deleted again after I rewrote it from scratch. --Pizzahut2 22:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So an AFD was held which endorsed the deletion, two weeks later a further AFD was held which then attempts to overturn the original deletion (not the role of afd), and now that further endorsed the deletion is being bought here for review. Unbelievable. --pgk 07:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The consensus of the original AfD was that the article at least needed a major rewrite. Since the list of HL2 mods survived the previous AfD, I thought it was the best cause of action to make the list of HL(1) mods similar. Is this an unbelievable mistake to make? --Pizzahut2 14:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • We are reading the same discussion? All the deletes I read effectively say this is inappropriate material for wikipedia and the deletes were a fair majority. I read the consensus as delete, not rewrite. --pgk 19:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • The concsensus was delete because the list in the current state was inacceptable (indiscriminate list / repository), not because a mod list generally doesn't have a place at Wikipedia. That's also what the last delete vote says: "WP:NOT a repository of external links, which this is unlike the HalfLife 2 article. Userfy if someone wants to turn it into an acceptable article rather than a directory." Also the closing admin said afterwards: "Even though there was no AfD tag on the article, the AfD is still valid, so this needs to be changed significantly before it is reposted, if it is reposted at all." [2] --Pizzahut2 12:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn original decision as the Admin who deleted the article did it against the voter's choice, blaming it on "sockpuppetry," without giving any proof. Considering that the other times the page has been AFD before and was overwhelmingly kept, I doubt the motivations of the Admin for the reason that they give. CPTGbr 22:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Assuming good faith, I guess the admin didn't mean to accuse anyone of using multiple accounts, but was merely refering to one purpose accounts (meatpuppets). An AfD is not a vote, or at least not meant to be one. It's about giving good reasons for either action (keep or delete), and ideally coming to a consensus. There wasn't a consensus, but merely saying "I find this list useful" isn't enough. As much as I'd like to have a list of good mods with descriptions and links and a couple of images of the best mods all on one page, it looks like Wikipedia isn't the place for this. --Pizzahut2 23:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lack of good arguments probably is what the admin meant with "not one valid keep vote". He wasn't saying all keep votes were sock or meat puppets. --Pizzahut2 00:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't stop the Esperanza crew from mass-keeping AfDs in their territory with "Keep it because I like it!" and successfully hitting a "Keep" consensus. Now is not the time to buck the system.--WaltCip 02:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the reference to Esperanza is irrelevant per WP:INN and factually incorrect as several subpages were recently deleted at MfD. Eluchil404 07:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, Wikipedia is not a directory trumps WP:USEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT, no reason presented to overturn whatsoever as AfD is not a vote. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as closer - I apologise if the closing summary implied every 'keep' was from a sock. I didn't intend it that way - there wasn't a single valid 'keep' because a) most of them were socks, and b) none of the votes were based on policy or guideline, just variations on 'I like it, it is useful'. Also note the two deleted articles are now protected redirects to the appropriate categories, which I think is a good thing. If they're notable enough to be on Wikipedia, they'd have their own article anyway, and thus would be in the category. Anything else is just inviting a huge pile of external links unverifiable by anyone other than Half-Life players, who would have a vested interest in keeping all the links anyway. Proto::type 09:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "most of them were socks" - Last time I checked I only counted two meatpuppets, maybe I missed some. I'm not feeling well today so I'm not up for checking all keep votes. Of course this won't change anything, I'm merely wondering if it's correct. --Pizzahut2 19:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and re-post AfD Closing admin has shown bias against so called "gamecruft" before. Also, considering the amount of "sockpuppets" the article should get a fair chance. Havok (T/C/e/c) 10:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore all, I don't see the justification for deleting these. Half-Life is arguably the most popular PC FPS franchise, and it is also the most often modded one. Millions of people have downloaded or played mods and a lot of the mods have gone on to become highly notable games in and of themselves ... for example, Counter-Strike, Day of Defeat, etc. Also, claiming that "every single" keep !vote was a sockpuppet is assuming bad faith bordering on ridiculous. I saw at least one Wikipedian I've known for almost an entire year in that discussion with a good keep reason. You're going to call that sockpuppetry? Preposterous. --Cyde Weys 06:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you read my comment? I said the majority of votes were sockpuppets. Majority != all. Please actually read the discussion. What I said was that no keep votes were valid. This was due to the fact that they were all variations on 'I like it', and failed to reference policy at any point. Proto::type 10:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn this one too please per cyde weys it is the most popular with games build on modification like counterstrike and dod Yuckfoo 22:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Cyde... i'm shocked we agree on something...  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. First nom for the HL2 article was almost a unanimous keep. Absolutely impossible that such a decision could turn into a "consensus delete, only sockpuppets want this article" decision. --- RockMFR 07:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a misrepresentation of what I said, I'm afraid. Proto::type 10:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. {{notavote}} - identify one single keep comment in here that presents a valid and relevant point. (Hint: "interesting" and "useful" are not relevant arguments.) Chris cheese whine 07:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • brighterorange's and RockMFR's keep comments aren't that bad. --WikiSlasher 11:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't be so fixated on that one single AFD. I wasn't ever aware of it; if I was, you can rest assured I would have posted a lengthy and detailed keep reason. For now, I'm stuck having to explain why the deletion was inappropriate. But just because you don't see keep reasons elucidated in that discussion that meets your standards doesn't mean they don't exist; remember, "votes" aren't binding in perpetuity. --Cyde Weys 05:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can always say "I didn't, but if I had ...", but you didn't. If reasons are not put forward in the discussion, then quite clearly there's no way the closing admin would have ever been able to take them into account. So, if there's some substantial piece of information everyone was missing in that list, let's see it. Otherwise, missing reasons or otherwise, it's a perfectly valid close, which is ultimately what DRV serves to discuss. Chris cheese whine 05:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Right now, it's a redirect to the category which is alright. But I see the benefit of having a list, I don't see how this is any less valid than List of webcomics. The only problem is that everyone wants to add their favourite or their own mod. - hahnchen 19:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - This had a good amount of information about the listed mods and their progress, unlike the HL1 list which was just links. Not gamecruft, actually had valuable info IMO. Unless you want to go through and give each of the listed mods their own page prior to deletion next time. Easier to simply put them all on one page. Kuroji
    • DRV is about whether or not the admin behaved correctly (accusing them of being anti-"gamecruft" doesn't help anyone decide), or whether some huge chunk of information that may have swayed the debate was not available to the participants. Arguments about articles containing a good amount of information, or being useful, interesting, valuable, etc. are for AfD, which DRV explicitly is not. Chris cheese whine 04:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, wasn't going to bother, but it was a case of 'I like it' versus fundamental Wikipedia policy, and so I closed it as such. Many of the arguments being produced on this DRV seem to be along the same lines. Proto::type 10:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fundamental Wikipedian policy hasn't been brought up in this DRV, and only once in the AFD as Wikipedia is not a directory, which in this case is inconsistent and indirect, for with that logic, all lists would have to be directed. WP:ILIKEIT, while it has good foundations, is not yet a policy. It's still an essay undergoing confirmation. Denying every vote as "sockpuppetry" and "I like it" is not grounds for reaching a consensus of delete unless you can specifically prove each vote wrong. People have made "per nom" and "per above" votes before, and while I understand that polling is evil, consensus is founded based on a vote majority. An almost 3:2 majority is, in my opinion, satisfactory. Did I mention that the number of Half-Life mods available in the mainstream community are widespread? (See GameSpy) So, yeah, maybe I like it, but OTHERS like it and Half-Life is one of the most popular games in the U.S. and perhaps the world. Is it false if millions of people like it, and these people make up a large part of the gaming community? You can fall back on fancruft, but Half-Life mods aren't fancruft if it's well known by the young and old.--WaltCip 12:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that if people are invoking WP:NOT a directory, it implicitly includes some not of WP:V and WP:N, otherwise they would not be supporting its deletion. Lists are fine in context. I think it's safe to assume that were there not some hint of these two in there, WP:NOT would not have been raised. Also, we don't tend to raise such things here, because doing so turn DRV into AfD round 2. In general, Wikipedia couldn't care less about who likes and how many people like it. If it's been written about, it goes in. If it hasn't, it stays out. If we have to define our own criteria for inclusion on a list, then the list has to go. Chris cheese whine 12:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention, since you again brought up the "3:2 majority" that AfD is not a majority vote. Chris cheese whine 12:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When the lists were deleted (closing of the latest AfD), they only contained mods which either had prove of notability (awards or mod of the year top 15) or were blue linked (had their own article). This should also cover verifiability as the review sites and the mod of the year feature was referenced or, in the case of blue linked mods, their notability hasn't been contested. So, the mods themselves were notable and verifiable at the time of deletion (I'm refering to the latest AfD). However if notable mods automatically make the lists notable, that's arguable. --Pizzahut2 14:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that while the rewrite of the LoHLm only contained notable mods from the start, the LoHL2m was cleaned up during the AfD. --Pizzahut2 14:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List of Jack Abramoff-related organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)— (AfD)

Keeping track of the complexities of the Jack Abramoff scandal is horribly complicated, and this page provided a straightforward summary of all the various organizations involved in some way. I'm happy to provide more sourcing but disagree with the deletion. --The Cunctator 20:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I find it completely inappropriate for the person listing an article for DRV to be the one who undeletes it. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's WP:AGF a bit here, shall we? The Cunctator is not at all the kind of person given to wheel warring, and has listed the undeletion here for review as well as tagging it with {{delrev}}. There was not much participation in the AfD, and the reason advanced for undeletion would have been a reasonably persuasive Keep argument. So I say let The Cunctator have a go at fixing the fundamental problem and I'm sure it can be revisited in a while. Damn, I think just endorsed the retention of a list. Guy (Help!) 21:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a personality thing, I would object no matter who did it. If somebody wants to bring up a request for undeletion to the DRV and somebody else thinks it warrants undeletion, then that somebody else should do the undeleting. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm just undeleting it for the sake of review. Whatever happened to assuming good faith? Or does every action have to be subject to wikilawyering and bureaucracy? --The Cunctator 23:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Like I said, why not list it here and let somebody else undelete it? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Honestly, I'm more than a bit confused as to what the "right" process is. We've got some people saying you shouldn't be using DRV, some people saying you can just undelete it, some people saying use DRV but don't undelete it...the reason to list it here and undelete it is so that people other than admins can see the article. Or are only admins supposed to be involved? Who makes the rules? Where are they clearly defined? --The Cunctator 16:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is an incredibly (long-winded) debate here where rough consensus is that articles may (on a case-by-case basis) have their history restored while under review. If the adminstrator who brings it for review undeletes, puts the "delrev" template on the page, and protects it, very little harm is done. - 152.91.9.144 23:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopen and relist AfD. DRV is not (as far as I understand it) a forum to review the outcome of an AfD one disagrees with, but in this non-WP:SNOW case, it would have been better if there would have been more discussion in order to establish consensus for or against deletion. Only three distinct opinions were expressed, two in favor and one against deletion. Sandstein 21:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the deleting admin, I told The Cunctator I didn't mind if he undeleted it if it was consensus amongst Abramof editors to do so, as there are other similar articles that weren't deleted... a batch AfD with wide participation would really have been most appropriate if one was going to happen at all. I don't really know that the DRV is all that necessary... it might go to AfD again but this is what happens when you don't group related articles together in the AfD, it's hard for the close to be very binding... as each one produced a different result in this case. --W.marsh 01:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_November_29&oldid=92180020"