User talk:Bschott/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

thanks

really couldn't work that one out -- Artlondon 15:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I just learned how myself and just wanted to help you since it is quite confusing! Have a great day and don't let it get you down. I've had many of my edits challenged. At least you have started a page. Seems to daunting of a task for me to try. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 15:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LG15

I would be interested for you to look at the links over at [1] and categorically state that these do not meet the apparent conditions laid down by WP:BIO, i.e. "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)" ?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tibi08 (talk • contribs)

You basically answered your own question. Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event do only count as one coverage and thus does not meet WP:V. I'm not the one that deleted the article nor was I the one that put on the AFD so I don't know how my comments matter at this point, especially now that the article is gone. If you want to contest the AFD, follow the rules stated. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 13:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have been heavily involved in the editing, I am interested in your reasoning. I do not agree that LG15's success represents a single day's news event - it represents a series of videos over a period of at least a month - but I take the point - the new event spans only one month (or thereabouts) and LG15 would not be noteable as a historic YouTuber if she faded into obscurity today. I guess the LG15 saga falls into the too-early-to-tell-significance category at this stage. However, thanks for your analysis. Tibi08 15:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like you to recuse yourself from any further involvement with discussions involving YouTube or persons known for their videos there. I believe you have a conflict of interest, or at least TOO MUCH interest in the topic. Your impartiality is in doubt. 75.2.208.134 09:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask but you already know the answer. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 16:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nero (band)

Thanks for voting on the AfD page, but it looks like you forgot to sign your name. I could leave the "this unsigned comment left by" tag for you, but it doesn't look quite as professional. :) Starry Eyes 20:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damn! Sorry about that... My break is almost over so I just rushed on that. I'll clean it up. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 20:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Tess Tickle

User talk:Tess Tickle if you view the talk page, you can see this user has a 'how to' listed on making VB6 virii and hacking html Guest books. Since it's on a talk page I didn't want to mess with it but contact an admin right away to deal with it. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 14:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed those sections and asked him/her NOT to repost them. If the user does then I will have to take further action or notify other more experienced admins. —Mets501 (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I don't think there's any point in getting hot under the collar about an article's deletion - consensus will out. Nice to talk to somebody who feels the same way (even if we disagree on the outcome). Yomangani ^talk 17:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree

(I am adding my comment from Isotope's talk page here so others know what this discussion is about an RfD[2] and the idea of making a page into a catagory. ) This may be something to bring up, but I am actually looking into creating a subcatagory (Users) or (Notable users) under the YouTube parent catagory. The reasoning is this: 1)Obviously the users are notable or they wouldn't pass WP's standards. 2)They are all famous or notable for their videos on YouTube 3)The page is only there to link users that have pages here at WP so what is the difference between this and a Catagory? A catagory would make it easier for people to traverse between each userpage as well and make things neater. It would also end these kind of arguements that "'XXXX' deserves mention because they are notable on YouTube."... Now, 'XXXX' needs to have an article before being included in the catagory and if they have an article, it can be debated in a consenus of editors if the article truely stands up to WP's standards. Thoughts? --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 18:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, a Category would be helpful here. To be honest, this is one of those situations where I don't understand how having a "list" article is really useful or adds anything to the project... you are right, it is absolutely redundant with a category.--Isotope23 18:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only trouble I have is I have no idea how to create a Subcatagory, (the instructions are a bit confusing)and I have no idea what to do with the article after the SC is made (put it up for AfD? Speedy?)--Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 18:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New SubCatagory or leave alone?

Just wanted your input really quick on this. I have been editing and caretaking the Notable YouTube users article however the more I think about it, the more I believe it should probably be a catagory instead of a page. All the people listed are notable for their fame derived from youtube, and the page is really only there for people who have articles on Wikipedia already, so right now there really isn't a difference between this and a subcatagory under the parent YouTube catagory. Obviously the users are notable or they wouldn't have a Wikipedia article...so the page is fairly pointless as I view it now. What do you think? I have reviewed all the catagory FAQ and articles but am still confused on how to create a subcatagory to link these user pages together...and how do I remove the 'notable' page once the subcatagory is made? Very confused. Sorry to take up your time --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 18:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Brian. It's pretty funny, the other admins and I were just talking about this on IRC earlier. I agree that it should become a category instead of a page. If you'd like, I'll create the category for you and make the parent category be Category:YouTube —Mets501 (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think their is a speedy for "article should be a category", so I'd suggest AfD after the category is created. Just make sure you have a well explained nom, buckle your seatbelt, and prepare for turbulence because I think this will be a bumpy ride.--Isotope23 18:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mets, I really apprecate it if you would make it for me, as I don't feel comfortable doing it myself. I'll AfD the page after it is made, per Isotopes' suggestion. Thanks guys, you are making this really painless :) --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 18:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. No need to AfD the page, I'll just delete it once it's been replaced by the category :-) I'll assume the category name should be Category:Notable YouTube users, right? —Mets501 (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure on the name. One one hand they have a wp page so they are notable (so it may be redundent) yet if we just have (users) then we have to include movie stars and anyone else that has a YouTube account. Humm. Yeah, I think I like your idea for the name. Lets go with that and THANKS ever so much! --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 19:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It's done. I moved the talk page to the Category talk as well. Feel free to write to me with anything else in the future! —Mets501 (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are great Mets! I appreciate all your work, and will remember your helpfulness in the future. If you need anything, let me know!--Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 19:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh snap. One last thing. Here[3] is a redirect discussion that pretty much was ended by this conversion. Since you are an admin, perhaps there is a way to close it?--Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 19:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all! I've closed the RFD. Looking at the RFC now :-) —Mets501 (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, after a long look at the RFC and YouTube's Terms of Use, I've put together a proposed solution. You can comment on it at the YouTube talk page. —Mets501 (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there is a barnstar around for all the great help you've been, and if I can give barnstars to admins...Yes, I fully accept the solution.--Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 19:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great! You can give barnstars to admins, if you're curious, and the list is at Wikipedia:Barnstars. See you around! —Mets501 (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your most recent comment on the Wavelet.biz AfD

It wasn't entirely clear which comment your recent reply in the Wavelet.biz AfD was intended to be a response to, and some intervening edits by other users made it even less clear (by separating your comment from the one it was likely in response to). I moved and reindented it to reconnect it to what I hope was the correct comment. Please double-check this and undo my change if it was incorrect, and my apologies for any inconvenience. Kickaha Ota 19:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that was me just making a mistake and correcting it. No appology nessasary. I understand why you would wonder what was going on--Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 19:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD protection

I was just stopping in to see how you are doing and ask if you could take a look at an AfD discussion. I normally would never ask for an AfD to have a semiprotect on it however I think this one may. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StereoKiller.

The reason is it turns out to be like a myspace knock-off and the users are flooding over here disrupting the discussion. I won't post the things they are saying just to keep your userpage clean. Thanks a million --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 14:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, other admins don't think it should be protected, so it'll stay unprotected. Sorry. If users are actually vandalizing it, though, they can be blocked. —Mets501 (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing is I think the other admins missed this[4]--Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 15:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I told them about that. I just asked again. They don't want to protect it. Just don't worry about the IP comments. The article will be deleted anyway (it's clear where this AfD is going) —Mets501 (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mets, you are a great friend. I'll just take the vandalism with some salt :) Do you think this will be closed early or will run the full 7 days? --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 15:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd imagine it will run the whole 5 days. "Vote stuffing" for AfDs of social networks/websites/fourms, with an active userbase is not that uncommon; same goes for vandalism and un-civil rants by anons or newly created users. Makes things tougher on the closing admin, but they always seem to get through it.--Isotope23 17:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horned Viper

You are keeping a Horned Viper as a pet? That takes some cajones... I used to have a 12' albino Burmese, but I never delved into the poisonous realm.--Isotope23 16:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Put it on order through a vendor where I picked up my western-Hognosed, Black Florida Racer, Mexican (pure black) Kingsnake, and Snow Corn Snakes. The expensive part is I bought 2 bottles of antivenom, and five pre-loaded syringes. Almost more than the snake cost. I decided that I was getting bored with these fairly tame non-venomous snakes and wanted something a bit more unique. The scorpians just didn't do it for me. I thought something beautiful but not extremely dangerous (though it's still nothing to fool around with). --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 17:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Got that right; smart getting the antivenom. I used to have a caiman. Once he got to be about 4 feet he was pretty fun. Getting him out of his tank for cleanings was a challenge. He was great for when I had unwanted guests... just let him run free and the unwanted people would usually leave.--Isotope23 17:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bioteams

Ha, yeah... I had just noticed those. To be honest, I'm not a big fan of multiple noms unless the articles are all child articles (like here)... plus they are a real pain to set up. I'd just nominate each separately and mention in the nom they are related to the other 2.--Isotope23 19:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who?

Who are you?

Thanks for telling about that.--Kingforaday1620 21:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just another editor like yourself :) --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 22:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Dwain

Hi. For the record, users blanking their talk pages without archiving them is not "considered vandalism". Users removing warnings is also not "considered vandalism". Both are discouraged / not standard practice, but are not in themselves blockable offenses. Unlike, for example, edit warring and harassment. While you doubtless were trying to maintain standards as you saw them, repeatedly reverting another user's talk page is generally a very bad idea. --CBD 11:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I did not think you were acting in bad faith. However, you are acting on a mistaken understanding. Several users, including admins, have tried to get such a policy enacted both by repeatedly inserting different versions of it into the vandalism policy and (more correctly) creating a policy proposal and holding a discussion. However, it has just as routinely been removed from the vandalism policy and the proposal failed to pass. There is no such policy, and repeated reversion to restore warnings is treated like any other edit warring - except that it may also be considered harassment as it takes place on the user's talk page and involves repeatedly adding information they clearly find insulting and don't want there. The ArbCom has banned users for significant periods over actions like that in the past. Again, I understand that you were acting on process as you understood it, but unless a consensus agrees that 'removing warnings is vandalism' it isn't the case... and to date discussions have shown that more than 75% do not consider it vandalism. --CBD 14:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emmalina

Mets, I don't know how to handle this so I thought I would ask your opinion. A person on YouTube whom I think of as a friend has had someone posting her personal information (home address, phone numbers, private pictures) on the Wikipedia page here. Emmalina. While a protect would be nice, the problem is that this is now in the cached history. I was wondering if there was a way to save her article on a sandbox, delete the 'real' one and then recreate it from the saved sandbox copy, erasing the history and protecting her information? --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 06:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I've removed the information from the page history. I deleted the article momentarily and then restored the article to the point before the information was posted. —Mets501 (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

noob

noob!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlip (talk • contribs)

You know it! --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 21:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to why you requested the lonelygirl15 page be deleted? UmassThrower 07:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you noted on the deletion page, I was for KEEPING the article, however after looking at WP:BIO please understand that she didn't have multiple independent sources and the NYT blog didn't count as a source per WP:RS, or WP:V --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 16:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

where to dance lindy hop in the US?

In response to your quesetion on my user page, I suggest that you try posting a message on Yehoodi - www.yehoodi.com - asking for help. I'm sure they'll point you in the right direction. I'm sorry I can't be more help, but I'm in Australia :) PlainJane 10:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

admin tag

THANKS! I missed that when editing the user page! My mistake! Big OOPS! --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 15:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem ;-) —Mets501 (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LG15

Hi Brian, I'm hoping you can help me understand somethings, but clearly I'm missing some important information. You supported and insisted on a deletion of LG15's page, your currently strongly support the deletion of geriatric1927's page, and refuse to delete Emmalina's page. LG15 and geriatric surpass Emmalina in media exposure and subscribers, Emmalina was a fad that is now over and never had the popularity that LG15 and geriatric1927 have now. Before I get further confused by your seemingly contradictory stances on each, would you mind providing edification on why you oppose Wiki entries for LG15 and geriatric1927, when they've been for more notable than Emmalina, but you refuse to support deleting Emmalina's page? Precisely what did Emmalina do that was notable and worth of an ongoing Wiki page? Thanks!—Preceding unsigned comment added by ErnieJamie (talk • contribs)

To understand my statement, you have to understand that Wikipedia has rules and standards. Geriatric1927's page (when I AfD it) didn't have any links except to the video itself, and one to a discussion board. After I pressed the issue, finally people came forward to provide links on his page that he does meet WP:BIO, hence I reversed my stance. LG15 never had any nation coverage (and only one local news story...the rest of the links were to blogs which do not count for sources). It doesn't matter how popular she is on YouTube, she doesn't meet the requirements for an article on Wikipedia. Emmalina has FOUR mentions in printed newspapers. Two in the Sydney Harold and two in the Washington Post. LG15 doesn't have any and Geriatric does (though when I nominated it for AfD, there were no links). That is what Em has that LG15 doesn't. Since you just made your account today, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 23:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos on watching out for the LG15 article. =) It's not over yet, unfortunately, but I posted a few more comments on the talk page regarding the subject. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 00:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification Brian. I guess my confusion arose because even after you were provided links and sources of media coverage on geriatric1927, you discounted them by saying they were all simply reprints of the same story only in different papers. That made no sense, media coverage is media coverage. If the same story is printed in 15 papers around the world, that's still International media coverage. As for your advice, thanks, but I've been around for a while and have made several edits on Wiki, as well as read the rules and guidelines. I got a new laptop 6 months ago and since I no longer was autosigned in when I visited here and have had no reason to sign in, I forgot my user name. When I couldn't recall it last night, I simply made a new account. Save your attitude Brian, people are more apt to listen to you when you're not admonishing them, especially when your assumption is erroneous. Anyway, thanks for the edicification on g1927, LG15 and Emmalina.

Proposed deletion of Relevance Paradox and Lateral Communication article

Brian - I note you wanted to delete the above article....Could you tell me why please? I am new to this game.

Assuming perhaps wrongly that it was due to lack of verification, I have appended some references, some at least are independant and academically respectable.

The associated article Information Routing Group puts the thing more into context.

If that still does not meet the criteria please let me know why.

Whether or not the article stays, I think Wikepedia is totally amazing. Keep up the good work.

Engineman86.134.88.212 12:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 86.134.88.212 12:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

86.134.88.212 12:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References for IIRG86.134.88.212 12:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC):[reply]

1. "Beyond Mass Media" Brian Martin. Science, Technology and Society University of Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia. General discussion of the IRG concept(http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/95metro.html).

2. The Power Of Open Participatory Media And Why Mass Media Must Be Abandoned. Brian Martin, March 20, 2006. General discussion of the IRG concept http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/03/20/the_power_of_open_participatory.htm

3. The IRG Solution - Hierarchical Incompetence and how to overcome it. David Andrews. Souvenir Press, London, 1984. Pages 200 - 220. ISBN 0285 626620. Detailed description of the proposal, hampered by the then general lack of awareness of the coming inter connectedness, and ubiquity of personal computers.

4. The Hidden Manager Communication technology and information networks in business organizations. Taylor Graham Cambridge / Los Angeles,1986. David Andrews and John Kent. Much tighter description of IRG concept and its application to business management. ISBN 0 947568 15 8 1986

5. Niss, M. (1994) Mathematics in Society. In Biehler, R., Scholz, R. W., Straesser, R., Winkelmann, B. Eds. (1994) The Didactics of Mathematics as a Scientific Discipline. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 367-378. Relevance paradox

6. Energy Research Group, Open University. Communication Within the Agriculture, Water, Waste and Energy Industries. Discussed examples of how the industries mentioned can be integrated to a greater or lesser degree, leading to lower pollution and energy use. Emphasizes problem is lack of co-ordination and communication. DC Andrews. ERG 033. Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, England 1980. David Andrews

6. "The Importance of Knowing the Right People" (Article on Lateral Access Networks - the forerunner of Information Routing Groups. Printed in the Guardian Newspaper, London (The National Newspaper) March 20th 1980.

8. Energy Research Group, Open University . Information Routing Groups. Discussed the need for IRGs and how they might be organized. DC Andrews. ERG 037. Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, England 1980. David Andrews

9. Yewlett, J . L . Town Planning, Wales, Institute. of Science & Technology . "Networks : Developments in theory & practice" . The paper reviews developments in the U .S .A. & U .K . in recent years, progressing beyond network analysis to explore the structure & use of networks. The paper seeks to address questions of how to construct multi-actor policy structures, & build networks for particular purposes. Contributory concepts explored included the 'Reticulist', the 'Leader/Co- ordinator', the 'Segmented Polycephalous Network' & the 'Information Routing Group'

I mentioned I thought it may merit an AfD but didn't want to bother.--Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 23:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Emmalina

The reason I had removed the AFD tag was because it had linked to the first afd nomination which had already been closed. After looking at it now, I see that it had 2 discussions on the same page. Normally people make a new page such as "WP:Articles for deletion/Emmalina 2" so I didn't know why someone would link to an old discussion. It wasn't meant as vandalism. Dinosaur puppy 00:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah my apology then. We have had a rash of vanadlisms over the last couple weeks on all YT related articles and I made a mistake and thought your's was also part of that. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 05:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MacNN afd

Hi Brian :) I'm new to wikipedia, and I was wondering if when citing sources for articles if they must be 3rd party. There only appears to be one remaining source for the MacNN article. here. Note that the link is from the MacNN forums. Would this be a valid source? Thanks! Hejog 17:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hejog, Yes, actually the sources must be third party. Linking to the forums wouldn't be accepted per the Wikipedia policies WP:V, WP:RS, WP:WEB and WP:CITE unfortunately. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 17:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What if there are no other sources? Hejog 17:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then unfortunately, the Article goes to AfD and most likely will be deleted. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 17:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three AFD's may have slipped through

I posted this on the Admin notice board but not sure how long that will take. Anyway, just a heads up that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manatee meat, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ModTheSims2, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitweaver2 have all been open for seven days now while other AfDs around them have closed. They haven't been relisted for consenus or posted to in a while. Could an admin take a look and make a call (relist, no consenus, delete or keep)? Thanks --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 16:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you, they have not slipped through. No need to post anything anywhere. They were only created on the 14th, and weren't due for closing until the 19th, and a 3 day backlog is very normal for AfD. There are still 36 open discussions as of now that were created on the 14th. —Mets501 (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lonelygirl15, further.

Please contact me if you'd like to work together on creating a list of reasons detailing why the article should not be kept. Currently, there seems no end to the discussion. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 02:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completely! I would love to do that --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 02:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, and I have compiled a list of the different users supporting its preservation. [[User:CaptainAmerica has had 211 edits thus far, User:UmassThrower has had a total of 12 edits, and all but one of the 12 is related to the LonelyGirl15 article. The user account for UmassThrower was created on August 19, two days after the LG15 article had been deleted and protected to prevent recreation. User:Scott 110 has 115 edits, most recent ones were the LG15 article. User:Bubbaprog has 4 edits, two of which are the LG15 talk page. User:Megacake has 6 edits, and was created on August 22. All of his edits are to the LG15 talk page.

What I mean here is that it's a bit worrying when half of the supporters have less than 13 edits, and two of them had their accounts created a few days after the discussion began. I can't run a search on sockpuppeting (I don't have the IP-tracing tools), but it's weird. What do you think? –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 05:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian, I noticed on the discussion page for the now-deleted LG515 entry that you were one of the most strident pro-deletion voices there. I don't have a dog in the fight--I never participated in any edits there, nor had I even heard of LG 515 before following a link on the NYT this morning. But my first thought when I saw the Times article was "What does Wikipedia have to say about this?" I know your mind probably isn't going to change, but I think there is value now in having an article, even if there wasn't before. (In the same way, an article about Chandra Levy in April 2001 or Monica Lewinsky in December 1997 wouldn't have been notable, but just a couple months later the same people would have been quite deserving of coverage; although not on the same level, I suspect that LG515 is at that point now.)68.179.133.199 12:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]