Jump to content

User talk:SoWhy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Caboose 911 (talk | contribs) at 11:50, 5 May 2009 (→‎Deletion of my page again (A7): new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

SOWHY's talk page
Click here to leave a message.
Messages on this talk page are archived after 1 week.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 // Index


Revoke Rollback Permissions

Hello you just deleted my talk page as requested. Can you also remove my rollback permissions? --[[::User:Sidonuke|Sidonuke]] ([[::User talk:Sidonuke|talk]] :: [[::Special:Contributions/Sidonuke|contribs]]) 19:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Good luck in your real life. Regards SoWhy 19:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sheree Ali

I don't know why that guy singled us out, but I remember this article being constantly created and recreated a couple of years ago. I didn't even have my admin tools returned to me at the time. I deleted and salted the talk page since it seems the article page had been previously salted. Thanks for letting me know. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I had no idea what this was about (I tagged it prod once though but nothing else) so I thought maybe one of you could make sense of it. Thanks for taking care of it. Regards SoWhy 19:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Sach

Just a question, I believe I tagged G3 after investigating, you deleted under A7. I'm not entirely sure why my reasoning for G3 was incorrect, I'd appreciate any feedback so I can be more accurate next time. Thanks. MLauba (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because as a rule of thumb (at least that's how I interpret G3) to qualify a hoax as vandalism, it needs to be blatant enough that it's obvious without need for research. On the other hand, the subject might exist but has no indication to meet inclusion guidelines, so A7 was clearly fulfilled. But don't feel bad, R'n'B (talk · contribs) was about to G3 delete it just when I had already deleted it, so G3 was probably justifiable. I just feel that G3 carries a strong implication of bad faith (= vandalism!) so I try to avoid it where possible. Regards SoWhy 11:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, thanks for the clarification. While we're at it, Obie Fernandez is on my watchlist and got PRODed. An IP with his first edit just reduced it to one line, implicitly contesting the PROD but also taking the article into A7 or A1 territory. I'm completely at loss here: revert the IP and thus re-prod? Leave it and AfD it? MLauba (talk) 11:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It still is not A7 or A1 because being a developer of notable software is an indication of notability (see also WP:A7M#BIO) and it has context to fail A1. Since they removed the prod, you have to view it as contesting it and should not re-add it. Take it to WP:AFD instead. Regards SoWhy 11:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sod this, I can probably source that :). Thanks again. MLauba (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's of course better than deleting, I do so myself often enough when faced with speedy-tags but it is an annoying job to do so: nice work on this - you probably established notability with that as well. If you need any further assistance, feel free to ask. Regards SoWhy 12:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's still a stub but I think it passes the GNG now. One deletion avoided :) Cheers, have a nice afternoon. MLauba (talk) 12:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks

Thankyou for the grant of new page watcher, and for the comments unterneith the grant, it makes my efforts feel appreciated very muchly. Thankyou. Jamesööders (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

I searched the article name in Google and found protein somewhere ans thought that it must mean protein. Sorry for the incorrect CSD. Thanks. Pmlinediter  Talk 11:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point is, exactly this text needs to exist from another Wikimedia project, because if it does not, it might contain useful information that is still missing on this or another project. Regards SoWhy 11:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SoWhy when you speedy delete articles untagged previously do you inform the creators? -- Mentifisto 12:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the article actually. Usually, I do not delete untagged articles but if I do, I'm usually checking whether the creator already created this or another deleted page and thus already has information about SD. Also, I usually warn on blatant vandalism and attack pages instead of using a sd-inform template. I admit though that I might not always have informed the creators where necessary and I welcome slaps to remind me. Regards SoWhy 12:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No I asked you because I was wondering why TW isn't made to do it automatically and whether I should ask about it. -- Mentifisto 15:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. You might want to nag Amalthea (talk · contribs) about that, he is both very TW- and CSD-savvy. Regards SoWhy 15:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need, someone has asked for that already. And no, Twinkle doesn't notify at the moment if you speedy it directly, without tagging.
It would be easy to just post our default SD notices, but most of the text is kind of pointless in those cases:
  • [...] you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
Is it still better than nothing? Or do we need a new slew of after-the-fact notices? Amalthea 15:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, can't we (i.e. you ) create a sort of master-template that says something like "I deleted your page XXX per criterion YYY" and the XXX and YYY are just parameters that TW fills in automatically? Of course, it would be nice if TW checked whether there is already a speedy-warning on that user's talk page, because otherwise it would be pointless. But it sounds like something that shouldn't be hard, you can borrow a lot of the text from the default notices after all :-) SoWhy 16:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you don't really just want to drop a "I deleted your page Red link per criterion A7" on a user talk page, you'll always want to explain what A7 is, basically the part
from {{db-a7-notice}}. That has to be stored somewhere, and it shouldn't be in the script (cause then only very few people would be willing to update them), so they need to be be put into a template.
What could be done however is to extract just the wording from above into a template which stores this text (and only the text) for all criteria, which could then be used in both tags. It'd need some changes so that it works both pre- and post-deletion, but that should be doable.
It might even make sense to extract the other wordings we have e.g. at {{Db-a7}}:
  • an article about a real person, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject
  • Article about an eligible subject, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject
so that if a criterion is changed, all those wordings can be updated with less risk of them getting out of sync.
I was thinking about redoing the db-*-notice templates for quite a while already anyway ...
Amalthea 17:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for User:Amvymra/Moutheater

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Amvymra/Moutheater. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Amvymra (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about deletion

Hi, I was wondering if you could explain why you deleted the content of No Mill Road Tesco (NMRT) Campaign on the grounds of "unambiguous copyright infringement" when I had put the quoted text into quotation format (or so I thought) and the material from the NMRT website is not, in any case, copyrighted. I'm new to wikipedia so would be grateful for some help! Thanks. Claudetc (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, if the whole article consists of text from somewhere else, even if marked as a quote, it's still copyright infringement. Quotes are allowed, but they should not make up 99%+ percent of the article. Then: Everything can be copyrighted, even if there is no © symbol or anything on it. For inclusion in Wikipedia, it must be explicitly released into public domain or under the GFDL or a compatible license. There was no sign of this on that page. You are free to recreate the page with your own words, but it might be re-deleted under another criterion, either as advertising or for not indicating significance or importance, so you might want to read Wikipedia:Your first article before considering to do so. If you have any more questions after that, feel free to ask. Regards SoWhy 16:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was a very quick reply! Sorry if I'm being dense, but how is something "explicitly" released into the public domain in this context? Thanks. Claudetc (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were lucky that I was online at this moment. Anyway: Something is explicitly released in public domain or under a certain license, if the webpage the content is on specifies as such (like this webpage has at Wikipedia:Copyrights) or a written letter or email to the Foundation by the copyright holder (detailed under Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission) releases the content under such a license. With text, it's usually easier to write it yourself rather than going through these lengths because text on other webpages usually is written from a non-neutral point of view and conflicts with our neutral point of view policy. Regards SoWhy 16:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sci-Mate article deletion

Hello SoWhy, I am trying to create a page explaining a community service for scientists called Sci-Mate, but you have taken it down. I have read your guidelines on this sort of thing, and yes I am a member of this community, but I do not stand to benefit personally from any extra traffic resulting from Wikipedia exposure. We run this site as a free community service for those who qualify for membership, and are not commercially orientated (we all work full-time in research positions). The site is also of general interest, particularly to the R&D community, which can be demonstrated by its separate coverage by Australia's major national paper The Australian, ABC's Future Tense program, and will shortly feature in the Journal of Science Communications. We might not be as notable as eBay and Microsoft, but I you might reconsider your decision to remove us from Wikipedia. I'd of course be very happy to change any aspect if you think it is too spam or ad-like. Regards, Christopher Dyer.XofD (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you forgot to mention reasons why the service is notable, which is why it was deleted in the first place. If you can indicate this, you are welcome to re-create the article (I can restore it if you need the previous text, just ask) but you should but mindful that you are in a conflict of interest and should be careful with sentences like "The Sci-Mate is a community project that will continue to develop according to the needs and wishes of its community of members." Also, please read Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you need further help, please just ask. Regards SoWhy 18:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the page, re-edited it- trying to adhere to the guidelines. If still not ok, please continue to be patient with me, as I genuinely don't understand some things that seem obvious to you. For example, I don't get why the sentence you quote is not ok in the context of the perceived conflict of interest. (that is just an example that you don't need to explain- unless there is a problem with what I changed it to) Cheers, XofD —Preceding undated comment added 19:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The sentence is an example of predicting the future and personal reflection, both things that are misplaced in an encyclopedia. Now that you restored the article, you should really add those sources you mentioned before (Wikipedia:Citing sources will tell you how that is done), so it will not be speedy deleted again. Regards SoWhy 19:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adama Keita

but i would have like my page reverted back to my user page not be deleted. couldn't he had done that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keitaadama (talk • contribs) 20:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See your talk page, Casliber (talk · contribs) restored the page to your userspace. The page was deleted because you moved it to article namespace from your userspace. It was not deleted because it was your userpage. Regards SoWhy 20:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thole kaLanga

Last time I checked notability was not inherited. Has something changed? Ironholds (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked A7 was not about notability. — Sorry, but I just had to
You are right of course, notability is not inherited. But being the son of someone notable indicates that the person might be important or significant in their own right, just like children of actors are often receiving coverage of their own for example. So I think this is a case for WP:PROD instead. Regards SoWhy 11:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Soliton

ThanX for ur advice.
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 11:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Srtaight Up

A couple of things as you declined the speedy delet.

1) According to the user page of the creator of the page the name of the album is actually "Srtaight Up" not "Straight up", the name you moved the page to.
2) The artist in question does not have a a wikipage.
3) According to the userpage, th album has not been released yet as the article says, rather it will be relased in July.

Passportguy (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well...
  1. Feel free to revert the move but in the article itself, the name "Straight Up" is used, so I guessed it to be one of multiple typos.
  2. He does not have to. A9 has two requirements, no entry and no indication of importance or significance (as does A7). If one of them is met (i.e. here the latter), it does not meet A9.
  3. Well, I have no idea, there are no sources. But that's not a reason for deletion.
Regards SoWhy 13:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, but the article is about is by an unreleased album by an unknown artist, and that is a reason for deletion. Passportguy (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, but not for speedy deletion if it asserts importance or significance and it does that (notable label, notable producer(s) etc.) You can always take it to AFD of course. Regards SoWhy 13:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rival Brand

Another editor has tagged the article Rival Brand for proposed deletion, with the concern "No notability asserted-speedy declined but ""rival brand" clothing columbus" produces no relevant google news stories." However, the article already has a reference from a magazine. -- Eastmain (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, proposed deletion (PROD) does follow the general AFD criteria for a reason, just without the discussion. If you think it's an invalid reasoning, you can contest the prod by removing it and then the editor has to file it for AFD if they want to pursue deletion. Regards SoWhy 19:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete of Gregg Valentino

Hi. The new article was speedy deleted before I could add the 'hangon' template. GSD G4 applies to content that:

is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted.

I never saw the old deleted article, but read the delete discussions. The source for the sparse information is new and not self-aggrandizing primary sources like before. The guy is a minor celebrity, is in the news every few months, and neutral accounts of him are hard to find online. We can fix that. Thanks Tafinucane (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G4 does not mean that the text needs to be the same as in the deleted version but the content is substantially equal. If an article gets deleted, like this one, because there is no notability, then a new article needs to overcome this obstacle. Consensus at AFD determined that the subject is not notable just because of the documentary in which he was covered for his alleged steroid abuse. As such, you need to find reasons why the subject is notable outside this narrow context, else the previous AFDs' results are still applying to the newly created version, even if it uses different text. You might want to request that the AFD gets reviewed to determine whether the subject's notability has changed since the last AFD deletion. Unfortunately, from the source you used, I cannot see that this happened, the previous article had multiple of those sources and none were enough, even though reliable. Regards SoWhy 20:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. The cite I provided did not exist when the article was first deleted. Basically, there was a new biopic produced on the guy since the last debate. He received a fair amount of buzz, so is more notable than he was a year ago. I see that once a subject has been deemed not notable there is a pretty substantial barrier to re-insertion. Much more so than the dozens of other bodybuilder bio's on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.145.54.15 (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as far as I can see, the new biopic essentially is covering him for the same reasons as the old one, doesn't it? The subject didn't do anything else in the last year that would have increased their notability, did they? If they did, I'll restore the article for you of course. Regards SoWhy 07:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation of the Baltic states

For the purpose of the page protection at Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II would it be possible to revert to my version from this morning which followed the article split? I split Occupation of the Baltic states into Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II and Baltic states and the Soviet Union‎. Occupation of the Baltic states during World War IIas it currently stands has been reverted to include everything from the original article, rather than reflecting that the original article was split in two. Not a major problem, but I think it will just be easier to understand what I started for anyone reviewing the situation. Thanks! Hiberniantears (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would be wise. After all, the current version does not violate policies and if it was reverted to that, then it might be one of the reasons for the edit war. Reverting it back would essentially look as if I took a position in the content dispute which I think we should avoid at all costs. So as long as the current version does not violate policy or contain vandalism, I'd say we should not revert it and rather concentrate on solving the dispute quickly. Regards SoWhy 18:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is fine either way, just thought I'd ask. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One quick thing. Just wanted to make sure you were aware of this thread I opened on myself on ANI. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of The Splase

Sorry but I was still writing the review in MS Word and had yet to upload it, that was the reason it had nothing on it at the time. Could you please undelete the page? Thank You Simon Mason CEO of The Splase Thesplase (talk) 01:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but Wikipedia is neither a place for newly created companies that are completely unnotable nor for promoting aforementioned companies. There is no point in undeleting the page, as the subsequent deletion of your recreation shows that it's unacceptable for Wikipedia. Regards SoWhy 09:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of multi-racial national football teams by continent of origin of players

Can you explain why you refused the deletion of List of multi-racial national football teams by continent of origin of players. It is a duplicate article and should at least redirect to the article it is a duplicate of. It is also poorly written, poorly sourced, not up to Wikipedia standards and the big image is a complete eyesore Spiderone (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is a strict list of criteria for speedy deletion and none of them apply. If you think, it should redirect to that article, then just redirect it there. Regards SoWhy 16:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Nikki Catsouras photographs controversy

Thanks for protecting this entry so quickly. Hopefully that will discourage the posting of inappropriate links. Wperdue (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]

You are welcome. Let's hope it does. Regards SoWhy 18:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay!

Thanks for the information! I'll keep this in mind in the future.  :) Lychosis T/C 19:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Yash, Kumarasamy

A legitimate reason if you ask me. Sounds fair. - Vianello (Talk) 02:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seven ways to greet a neighbor

To clarify, the entire article is not a copyvio, even the descriptions. The descriptions are directly translated section of the Arthashastra. In addition, it is not copy and pasted from the page, and upon further examination you will find that it does not contain the same text as found on the website. -download ׀ sign! 20:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looked like the same text to me, minimally changed only. If you say, it's a translation, then sorry, it's fine to re-add it, as translations can only be done in a limited number of ways. Regards SoWhy 21:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, I've rephrased the text. However, I've voluntarily created a deletion debate as Either way has questioned the topic's notability. Feel free to comment if you like. -download ׀ sign! 21:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old Leagonians Cricket Club

Hello, I have had a page deleted. The text was copied off of the Old Leagonians Cricket Club website which I run. We are a small cricket club based in Epsom, Surrey, UK. We have been playing since 2002 and we have played many teams over the years. We believe in fairplay and having fun. That's what our website try's to promote. I'm currently revamping our website (see http://web.me.com/oldleagonianscc/Site/Welcome.html) and that's why I wanted to include Wikipedia. Thanks, Mike a.k.a. Hannibal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.141.75 (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia and all text added has to be released under the GFDL or come from sources with a GFDL-compatible license. No such license was found on the page in question. Even if you were the copyright owner and able to release the text under such a license, your club is very likely not notable enough to be included into Wikipedia and will probably be deleted as such. As much as I understand your enthusiam, Wikipedia is not a place for you to promote your club and you should avoid trying to do so. Regards SoWhy 06:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hello mate, just wanted to say thank you for un-protecting Steve McFadden, it's about time it was anyway once again many thanks for that yours faithfully :–) –78.150.69.71 (talk) 07:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Don't make me regret it ;-) SoWhy 07:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I won't, don't worry–78.150.69.71 (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

House-keeping and moves

Thanks for the information! - Epson291 (talk) 08:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of article Advanced Market Research Group

Hi,

I have seen that my article "Advanced Market Research Group" has been deleted on 02 may 2009.

The reason given is the text is from www.amrgindia.com/index.php

The above website belongs to me and i am the owner.

So i would request you to be kind enough to reinstate my article.

With regards,

KunnalKunnalamrg (talk) 09:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but those claims are not enough. Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia and all text added has to be released under the GFDL or come from sources with a GFDL-compatible license. No such license was found on the page in question. Even if you were the copyright owner and able to release the text under such a license, I would only restore it to immediately re-delete it as unambiguous advertising, as your homepage, just like the text you added to Wikipedia, serves to promote your company, something Wikipedia does not need, want or tolerate (see Wikipedia:Spam). Your are welcome to write a neutral, sourced article if your company is notable within our guidelines but need to be careful that you are of course under a conflict of interest. Regards SoWhy 09:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of my page

Hi, You deleted my page (The Super Awesome Club of Super Awesome People) saying it was a blatant hoax.
I assure you this is no hoax. So far we have 2024 members, who get together (sometimes in real sometimes on the internet)
to discuss the list. I am in the process of getting a website made for the club so please could you kindly undelete my page? Thankyou for your time.

Oh, I'm deeply sorry - I misread the article to mean that those people you listed are members of it. Sorry for the incorrect use of G3 in this case. The article is covered under A7 though, as there is no indication whatsoever that this club of yours would be notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not serve to promote your club and unless you can provide reliable sources to verify that this club is in fact notable for inclusion or at least can make any credible claim why this should be the case, any recreation will be re-deleted (althogh with the correct reasons this time). Regards SoWhy 10:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neologisms

Hi So Why, I appreciate the comments on the speedy deletion of Pisasu. I find neologisms and dictionary definitions difficult, obviously some are straight out vandalism and are obviously CFSD, while in some, like this, good faith has to be assumed. However I think a 1 sentance article giving a translation of a Hindi word has wp:snow chance of finding a permanent place in English wikipedia. Do you see any possibility of a SD category for neologisms and word translations that are not supported by verifiable 3rd party evidence. Cheers Porturology (talk) 10:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that it's unlikely to be kept, CSD has a section on Non-criteria and consensus is that WP:NOT reasons are not covered under SD rules. If they are blatant hoaxes, we can delete them as G3 anyway, but good-faith creations should be kept for a few days so someone with more knowledge can decide whether they might be suitable for trans-wiki for example or to be merged into another article. I think this has some merit, which is why I do not thing a SD category for such things would be wise. Regards SoWhy 10:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of my page again (A7)

Hi,
You deleted my page again (A7) The page is designed to inform people about the club.
How is this any different to, say, the Ku Klux Klan. It is a group of people, the wikipedia page for it is not taken down because it is informing people about the group, as is my page.
Thankyou for your time.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SoWhy&oldid=288034985"