Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 June 16

16 June 2006

File:944 h.jpg

This image has suddenly stopped appearing in its article, and seems to have been deleted. I was never notified of a pending deletion, and I cant't find a record of the process to find out why it was deleted. There shouldn't be copyright issues, because Indiana University allows the photo to be used for informational purposes as long as it bears the accompanying legend "Courtesy of Indiana University." The image description page contained a link to the original photo source and there was a note on the copyright status. What was the problem? Does the photo have to be free of all restrictions, including "Courtesy of..." tags? Did I format the image tags incorrectly? Was the problem the photo's generic name? I would like to upload a new copy of the photo, but I will refrain from doing so until I know why the image was deleted and whether the photo can be re-uploaded in a manner that complies with Wikipedia policy. --Jpbrenna 20:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This image was deleted from Commons, and en.wikipedia.org deletion review does not have jursidiction there, see their deletion policy at Deletion. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Nor can images be restored once deleted. You may want to dig through Google's cache and see if you can find it again, then save it on your computer and discuss restoring the image on Commons. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

They actually can now Will (message me!) 22:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Didn't Brion make it possible? --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 22:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Image undeletion is supposedly working now, but I don't know how stable it is at the moment. If it's wiki-wide then a commons admin could restore that image, if requested on commons. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Woa! Well, would you look at that! I'm impressed, my kudos to Brion. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment* As far as I can see it was deleted due to unknown license status. I'd reccommend to either take your plea over to the Wikipedia Commons (if image undeletion really works) or just look for it again on the net, reupload it and make sure it has the correct license tags. CharonX/talk 23:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• The image deletion is recent enough to make undeletion possible. I think the best action would be to contact User:Essjay (who deleted it), and make you case directly. -- grm_wnr Esc 21:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Stone Trek

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stone_Trek
• Overturn and Keep As another editor recently said, AfD isn't a vote — it's supposedly the arguments made that carry the most weight, and in this case, I feel the arguments were ignored. This article is a textbook case of meeting WP:WEB, as it only needs to meet one of these terms - for condition #1, SciFi.com picked it as their site of the week [1], it was featured on G4TechTV [2], and even William Shatner plugs it on his website. Condition #2 hasn't been met, as far as I can tell, but #3 has been as well, since the series is hosted at Newgrounds.com as well as StarLand.com, who apparently commercially sponsored the series as well. Any of these links easily satisfies the conditions laid out at WP:WEB.

And finally, using the ever-popular Google test (just for those who want to judge notability), we get over 16,000 returns on the term, practially ALL of them referring to this series. The page should be restored. MikeWazowski 16:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse delete Fails to meet WP:WEB, contrary to MikeWazowski's claims. The G4 mention can hardly be described as anything but trivial and passing, and the same is true for Shatner's site. Further, newgrounds distribution is a terrible standard for notability - it allows anyone to put up whatever they want. Do you propose that every single flash movie on there should have a page here? The only claim to notability is the SciFi.com mention, but then again SciFi.com isn't very notable itself. I don't think it meets the requirements. Deleuze 17:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you really asserting that the website for the Sci-fi Channel isn't notable? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you really asserting it is the subject of multiple non-trivial works that are indepedent of the work itself? Even if you assert that a small bit on scifi.com is non-trivial (and you would be wrong), that's it... the sum total of "note". The G4 mention is one line and a link mixed in with other trek fandom links. As I said further down, hosting on things like newgrounds is meaningless, since they are almost totally indiscriminate. This really does not pass WP:WEB. The AFD was correctly run, and there is no reason to justify overturning it, and no justification for you trying to re-fight it here. - Motor (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, I am saying they do. Multiple is multiple, even if you want to spin it as one line as part of a subject is not enough, we disagree. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Multiple non-trivial works is the wording jeff. It's worded that way for a reason. - Motor (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse delete, the decision was correct. The arguments made for keep were not substantial and, for the most part, inaccurate. WP:WEB discounts the kind of off-hand trivial linking that Stone Trek claims to enjoy. Newgrounds is, for the most part, indiscriminate, and its hosting there means little. Also, notablity is generally measured from outside the area of the item under discussion (outside ST/SF fandom in this case). Lots of "keep" arguments revolved around people liking it... fair enough, but not a reason for a "keep". - Motor (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep, it meets WP:WEB, and should ahve been kept on that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep - clearly meets WP:WEB. TheRealFennShysa 22:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist in a new AFD (preferably) or Overturn and keep (per User:MikeWazowski's comments above). There were two aspects of this AFD that were highly questionable - (1) it was one of a mass series of nominations of Star Trek fan productions and there was a lot of emotion involved in the discussion rather than actual consideration of the positions and (2) there was some obvious sock puppetry. Further, MikeWazowski has provided additional media mentions, providing further evidence of meeting WP:WEB that was not presented for consideration in the AFD. For those reasons, I believe it really ought to have its own AFD where it can be considered outside of the context of that emotionally charged night of Star Trek AFDs. BigDT 23:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Closer's comment (wasn't notified of this discussion, by the way) - I saw your basic rough consensus for deletion, and no particularly overwhelming arguments on the keep side. It started off with the nominator of this discussion above accusing the AfD's nominator of bad faith because, er, he started a lot of other AfDs on similar subjects (I call that consistency, myself, but, much like solvents, WP:POINT accusations are only fun when you abuse them), and didn't get much better from there.
• The external links provided that supposedly meet WP:WEB did not appear to sway the editors that commented after they were provided, and as I've already made the close and don't need to be neutral any more, I strongly agree that they didn't confer notability. I agree that Site of the Week is "about as notable as a newgrounds or youtube award" (Hahnchen) - otherwise, 52 websites a year presumably suddenly merit Wikipedia articles on the basis of an obscure satellite channel's website feature. On G4TV.com, Stone Trek is only mentioned in a space-filling list, and it's second from the bottom. Passing mentions are not a good basis for an encyclopaedia article. Ditto the so-called plug by the All-Bran Man, which in reality is another list of weblinks, although this time it's an impressive third from the bottom.
• As for the 'independent distribution' bit, there's no way all Newgrounds cartoons should get an article. Note that the footnote of WP:WEB says "Although GeoCities and Newgrounds are exceedingly well known, hosting content on them is trivial. I doubt Starland.com is much more discerning, I very much doubt it qualifies as "well known" (that's "well known" to ordinary people, not "well known among Star Trek and Flash cartoon fans"). Oh, and I did look at the contribution histories and don't believe the consensus depended on 'votes' from very new users. I stand by my closing, obviously. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - within discretion. Metamagician3000 04:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, appears valid per policy and per process. Keep arguments appear to be mostly arm-waving. Just zis Guy you know? 11:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - Valid close. Please see Angus McLellan's comments on the AFD to see why. - Hahnchen 11:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Valid closure by deleting admin, no reason to overturn. --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, per Hahnchen. — Mike • 20:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the mention on scifi.com does not meet WP:WEB. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse delete - Nothing looks unusual or improper in AfD. ` LotLE×talk 04:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: A spin-off of a spin-off cannot borrow the notability of the original: the cartoon version of "Joanie Loves Chachi" can't get "Happy Days"'s numbers. WP:WEB is not satisfied. Geogre 12:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per the arguments of Motor and Geogre. Rossami (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Lightsaber combat

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightsabercombat
• Overturn and delete. AfD isn't a vote — it's supposedly the arguments made that carry the most weight. This article is a textbook example of WP:NOR — really, no argument (at least in my opinion) can be made that it isn't a huge, entire, massive batch of original research. And a sampling of the "persuasive" keep arguments:
  • "the article contains a lot of detailed information which should not simply be deleted. It is of great interest to people such as myself, and is the sort of thing wikipedia is made for."
  • "it is a large article made by star wars fans (obviously), it appears to be quite good and shouldn't be deleted without a good reason,"
  • "I think this is probably of enough interest not to be deleted as 'fancruft'."
  • "since this was nom'd w/o discussion and is more than a year old, with many different editors having contributed to it"
  • "the various forms are used extensively to characterize SW characters"
  • "so what if some people here don't like Star Wars minutae?"
  • "It's interesting!"
  • "Very important part of a very important fictional universe. More important to actual characterization than, say, most Middle-earth places."
  • "This is an excellent Article and contains comprehensive information that is used by many people. That data compiled into this article contains much information that is generally not available in a single article elsewhere."
  • "If you guys don't like it don't read it pretty simple eh"
  • "This page is extremely useful to my Star Wars: Jedi Academy clan" — Mike • 15:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete Agree with Mike. Perfect for some star wars wiki, but not here. Deleuze 15:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete per nom. --Mmx1 15:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Puke-enducing. The only references seem to be external links that, as far as I can tell, are written by fans and posted on free web services, making it original research. Not original to Wikipedia, perhaps, but OR nevertheless. -R. fiend 15:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, some of those refs suck--but there is a Star Wars Insider ref and actual books Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith The Visual Dictionary by David Reynolds (ISBN 0789485885), which is part of a series. There are also references to various games, which probably have manuals and strategy guides--if not the games themselves--that could be used to cite this along with novels (that are also referenced already). Uncited? mostly. Original research? lots of it. Unverifiable? Some, but not totally. I think the topic could be handled better by Wookieepedia, but neither side has a convincing argument. As there are reputable sources and people willing to work on the article, why not give them say 2 weeks and re-evaluate it then? Kotepho 16:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Also, a quick glance showed that the article cites the RotS novelisation and KOTOR II in at least one place. Also, R. fiend seems to misunderstand what OR means. All research is original to somewhere. If the information was just made up on some site, that's called a hoax, not OR. jgp (T|C) 17:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse keep - there was an obvious consensus to keep. MaxSem 16:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete unless the article is revised so that the various descriptions are given specific inline references to the specific published sources—the "novelizations as well as Expanded Universe sources such as the novels, magazines, comic books, the Star Wars Role-playing Game and 'Visual Dictionaries.'"—on which they are said to be based. I don't have a problem with people having different interests than mine, but I have a big problem with articles that don't even try to meet the minimum standards of scholarship expressed in WP:V, which is said to be "non-negotiable" and "official policy." Dpbsmith (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and close as no consensus. I don't see a reason to delete, but I don't see a clear reason to keep, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep - while the subject is much more information than even I'm interested in, according to the admin who closed the debate, the "keep" votes clearly outnumbered the "delete"s... As to RFiend's claim above that all the links were to fansites, he needs to either look again or actually read them - this link in particular (listed #2 on the page) is from an article in Lucasfilm's own Star Wars Insider magazine, with material such as this endorsed and authorized by Lucasfilm. Most of the other material in the Wikipedia article is taken (although not referenced properly) from various Star Wars novels and games, and thus, not original research. It may not be referenced properly in the Wikipedia article, but they didn't come up with the majority of this on their own. MikeWazowski 16:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, but it's not a pure headcount kind of a situation at AfD. It's the quality of the arguments — and no clear argument was made with regards to why that thing isn't a huge batch of fan OR. — Mike • 16:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep Deletion does not substitute for cleanup. I was the first keep, and I did not base it on any kind of "fancruft." I based it simply upon the google test results[3] which were good. It seems a little upsurd that the format of an article is enough to ganer deletion. Mike is also ignoring some of the legit editors who voted keep, comments inculded, "This article could be pared down considerably, but there is no basis for deletion"[4], "Sure it could be formatted a bit better; that just means we should work on improving it, rather than deleting it altogether."[5], "More editing and cleanup can help."[6], "There's a treasure trove of information here, and from the descriptions of lightsaber combat I know from games and several books, a lot of it is accurate. It just needs citations. The page reminds me of how the Force Powers page used to look, but the Force Powers page is pretty clean now ever since we started enforcing citation. We just need to work at it. There is no need to throw out the entire article"[7]. Also it should be noted that the nominator was going on a crusade of "fancruft," and had strange rationale, "nn-not-real-sport-cruft."[8].
  Also, all of the reasons for "keeping" that Mike listed were from anon and new users, whom usually get their opinions disregarded. The closing nom noted that there were good arguments on both sides, prehaps it could have been closed as a no-conseus, but that is no reason to file for a deletion. Respectfully, Yanksox ^(talk) 16:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep Poorly referenced articles aren't the same as pure OR articles. Is there some way to give a deadline for the article to be properly sourced before it comes up for deletion again? For such a large article, it could take some time to properly cite every fact. EVula 17:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep This is a textbook case of "no consensus", and in such cases, the article is kept by default. At least some of it is cited, as well--if the uncited parts need to be removed and the article needs to be cleaned up, so be it, but that doesn't justify deleting the entire article. jgp (T|C) 17:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, textbook case of headcounting and ignoring guidelines and policies with regard to original research. I think they should turn it into a wikibook and link it from the Lightsabre article... but an article on a fictional combat technique that was started from a ficitional point of view (what's next "X-Wing flight dynamics"?) and continues to be written that way. On top of that the keep votes, as noted above, were pretty awful. - Motor (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Wikibooks doesn't want this, unless people actually have classes that need textbooks for lightsabre combat. Kotepho 18:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse keep. Probably should have closed as "no consensus", but in that case it's kept by default. I fully agree that it needs cleaning up and better citing, but it's not just complete OR, and it's not unsalvageable. BryanG^(talk) 18:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Close. Properly closed based on the discussion. --JJay 22:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Close per BryanG. —Mira 22:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist for the same reasons I gave in the above Star Trek AFD. Take it out of the context of the emotionally charged situation surrounding its nomination. BigDT 23:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Close followed policy.Geni 00:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep as per MikeW. Nscheffey^(T/C) 01:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse keep - clear consensus. That wouldn't have mattered if the article had been hopeless, but I've had a close look at it, and it isn't. The concept is a concept in the franchise itself, not something we've made up. There may be some original research in the article but it looks like a lot of it is not original research in our sense. The presence of some original research in an article that is not fundamentally hopeless may be a reason for pruning and editing, but not for deletion. Metamagician3000 02:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse keep per consensus in AfD --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No Original Research. --Improv 18:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep - improve to remove the original research, don't delete the whole thing. —Mira 02:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'd much prefer to move as much Star Wars material as possible out to Wookiepedia, which exists for exactly that purpose. However, in this particular case, we had to go through a major AfD battle to get lightsaber combat down to one article. At one point, we had one article for each "form" of combat. That was just too much. We had more info on lightsaber combat than on fencing. At least now we're down to one article. I can live with that. I'd suggest, though, that Star Wars articles in Wikipedia be confined to material from the movies. The vast amount of collateral marketing material mostly isn't notable. --John Nagle 02:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The existence of Wookieeeeepedia should have no bearing on our decisions one way or another. If someone created a Physicspedia, we wouldn't move physics articles there because of it -- we would only move articles that we would have deleted anyway. I agree, of course, that much Star Wars content has limited notability.--Eloquence* 04:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep While not given footnotes, the article is fairly well researched; follow the links before you say "NOR! NOR!". Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.Captainktainer * Talk 05:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep The article isn't perfect, but it's far from being delete worthy IMHO. Barnas 14:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but definitely add more references so that it doesn't end up here again. --tjstrf 21:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki over to http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page . Really: What other encyclopedia bases pages on copyrighted fiction material? Only Wikipeida and only to keep some volunteers happy. People can easily straddle en.wikipedia.org for fact-based material and wikia.com for copyrighted, commercial fiction and entertainment. If Wikipedia gets less mind share from such fancruft-obsessed people, then all the better. -- 67.121.113.141 20:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Technically, we can not transwiki this page to starwars.wikia because that is not a WikiMedia project. It is, however, compatibly licensed under GFDL so you could freely copy the content over there as long as you include a copy of the page's attribution history. I think your suggestion has merit. Be bold! Rossami (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Endorse Keep This article provides background information about the Star Wars saga that is substantiated by the Star Wars movies, books, etc. There is no persuasive reason to delete it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.211.82.5 (talk • contribs) 140.211.82.5.
• Endorse closure, closing admin acted within their judgement. Personally, I feel the article is a complete waste of electrons, that should be expunged from Wikipedia at the first possible opportunity, but the AFD didn't reflect this. So I will probably make a note to renominate this in a couple of months, unless it is tidied up and all OR removed. Which would make it two lines long. Which would get it deleted anyway. It's a vicious circle, whatcanisay. Proto///type 13:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Knox (animator)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villain (Knox movie)

Knox (animator) was a page about a popular internet animator, he currently has over ten million unique hits on his website, www.knoxskorner.com. His next full feature movie, Villain, is being helped by David Rand, who worked on The Matrix, and Marc Spess, professional clay modeler. There are Wikipedia pages about other flash animator far less popular and professional thank Knox. Why was his page deleted? Now, it is impossible to recreate the page as it has been completely locked, and there are over ten million people who would like the page restored. There are other flash animators who have pages on Wikipedia, and it seems hypocritical that Wikipedia are not allowing Knox to have a page.

• Comment Salting admin's edit summary is "deletedpage template, as per AFD". Someone should link in that AFD. GRBerry 22:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • done. See also the page that used to be at Robert "Knox" Benfer which was speedy-deleted as a recreation of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Robert Benfer and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knox (flash artist). Rossami (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Deletion was in process, thoroughly discussed. How many times do we have to go over the Knox thing? It just keeps coming back, like a bad lunch. By the way, I think the claim that ten million people want the page restored is, shall we say, exaggerated. · rodii · 22:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, valid afd (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villain (Knox movie)), notability still not establshed. Trying to claim that an article should exist because others do is never a valid argument. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Benfer. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Question: Was the AfD listed at the (animator) article? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, see the link above. It's also a repost of the VfD I also listed above (after you posted this). User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Endorse deletion, unfortunately. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oh no, not again. Keep deleted, as usual. Just zis Guy you know? 22:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• JzG stole my comment. "There are over ten million people who would like the page restored" - wow, I used to get depressed that 1.2 billion people were living on less than $1 a day, but thanks to Intuhnets Cartoonist #21579 and his fans I now have some perspective. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• As per JzG exactly - Hahnchen 12:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - the "10 million people" thing is ludicrous, and the numbers don't add up. His movie's IMDB has had only 239 people vote on it - surprisingly, 205 voted it a "10", which smacks of some severe ballotstuffing in my book. His website has "barely" cracked the top 100,000 sites listed by Alexa, but has dropped off in the last 3 months. If anything, that "10 million" number is total visitors, counting all the duplicates from people going to his site every day. The telling statistic on that page is that for every one million people using the web, only five of those visit his site, and that number has been dropping as well. MikeWazowski 18:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• This is so stupid. His cartoons are all over the web. Why cant he have an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilikefood (talk • contribs)
• Endorse deletion - valid closure --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This thing just won't stay dead; here's hoping this time does the trick. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Stir of Echoes: The Dead Speak

This page was recently on the AfD page and Joyous! closed the AfD as no consensus even though the tally was 10 delete to 7 keep. If anything this page is going to be the current article length for at least a year or more until more information is released on it. As is there is only one actor on the IMDB page and only one line of description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whispering (talk • contribs) 20:17, June 16, 2006 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Consensus. 10-7 is not a consensus by any definition of the word. -- SCZenz 20:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close, 10-7 on a straight vote count is the definition of "no consensus." I'm half inclined to say overturn and change to straight keep since it was clear that this easily reached the standard for future movies/events, but I won't be that catty. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• 10-7 is clearly "no consensus", not keep. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (no consensus). Personally, I would have argued to delete the page if I'd seen the AFD in time. I didn't and Joyous was perfectly correct in her closure. Note that a "no consensus" decision does not stop you from renominating it for deletion if new evidence presents itself or if the article remains unimproved for a reasonable period of time. Rossami (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close. No rules were broken here. Denni ☯ 03:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - well within legitimate admin discretion. Metamagician3000 06:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Enrdorse closure per Metamagician3000. --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)