User talk:Retired username/Archive9

Toobeez?

Hi

I wrote the toobeez article and I would like to point out that I did not write this article as an advertisement or promotion for this product, as wildthings61476 stated in his statement. I am disappointed that it was rejected gain.

with reference to the recent toobeez comment - that is not my signature!!!!!

username

is it possible to change my username??

username

So, do I just edit the Change Username page and put down my new username and the reasion why, etc?

username

Ok, I'll try.

MarshBot adding {{linkless}}

The bot should not add this template to subpages, as many subpages are just included rather than linked to. However, the main namespace doesn't handle subpages - recently the bot added the template to Stargate SG-1 DVD/Boxset Dates, which is included in about 3 articles. Perhaps then, the bot should simply add the code:

<noinclude>{{linkless}}</noinclude>

--Alfakim-- talk 10:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add that the bot should not add this template to disambiguation pages, as disambiguation pages should generally be linkless in the first place (there to catch search terms, et al). -- Ratarsed 20:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm becoming concerned

Are you after me in particular? Do you watch to see what articles I add to the thoroughbred horse racing archives? Every linkless thingy you place on something of mine, I try and do something about. In the case of the Iroquois Stakes, I've linked every possible word that can be linked to something else. This race article now has more links than most any other race article on wikipedia. It positively bristles with links, yet once again you've gone and called it "linkless." What the heck is your criteria? Why doesn't it apply to a dozens of other races others have written with virtually no links at all? What is going on? Did I piss off some friend of yours? Or you? Who are you? ..Ki Longfellow 20:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. As the old saw saws: I learn something new every day. Or at least every week. I now understand what is meant when something I have something to do with gets a linkless tag with links all the darn thing. Fascinating. Of course this means I have more work to do. But thank you! ..Ki Longfellow 21:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/College Tonight

I would like to request the history and a copy of the article(s) that were previously deleted at College Tonight, to review how the content has changed since then. -- Sertrel (talk | contribs) 18:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it was easier just to undelete the old versions. As you can see, not much has changed. Not really sure where to go from here, but I think an AfD is more definitive than a speedy deletion (since honestly they stretched the criteria quite a bit). --W.marsh 19:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battleball

The battleball plage recently created on Wikipedia should not be deleted because it is quickly becoming one of the most popular drinking games in the country. Because it is so new and innovative, there are almost no sources for which can be used as citations. The game is very revelant to the social aspect of college and it would be a travesty for it to be deleted from Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattmcnichol (talk • contribs)

Uh huh. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day --W.marsh 22:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unsere zeit

I added additional cross-references, especially from the German political parties associated with this newspaper.

May we remove the orphan tag from unsere zeit? Dogru144 09:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I went ahead and removed it. --W.marsh 14:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's Marshbot's limit on "linkless"?

I see that Utility submeter got tagged by the bot, despite having one "real" incoming link (from RUBS). What lower limit for incoming links is the bot using?

Given that the bot is currently tagging more than 2000 articles just on the letter T (found by eyeballing Category:Orphaned articles from November 2006), making the task of linking them look mountainous. --Alvestrand 15:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, if any have no incoming links from articles and are still tagged, feel free to remove the tag as they're not really orphaned anymore. There are apparently about 50,000 orphan articles on WP, the bot has tagged (almost) all of them finally, it was recently doing some catchup work. Sorry it tagged that one article... you can remove the tag from it. --W.marsh 15:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I hand-tag, I generally want 2 links before I'm satisfied about removing the tag. I was wondering if the bot thinks the same thing, or whether it was an error. (The link is relatively new - I inserted it some time this week. Working out of a cache?) --Alvestrand 15:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks!

My brand-spankin' new mop!

My RfA done
I hope to wield my mop well
(Her name is Vera)

I appreciate
The support you have shown me
(I hope I don't suck)

Anyway, I just
wanted to drop you a line
(damn, haikus are hard)

EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider deletion of eGullet article

Today you deleted the eGullet article that we submitted.

Based on our review of previous reasons for deletion, we tried to rely only on publicly verifiable sources.

In addition, there seemed earlier to be some doubt about the significance of the organization. The eGullet Society and eGullet.org website represent a globally significant culinary arts society. You can pull up the Google news archive here http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=egullet&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&btnG=Search+Archives and see that there have been 169 news articles written about the eGullet Society in the past five years, many in major newspapers like the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and New York Times.

Thanks for your consideration.

You can freely create the article again as far as I'm concerned, but it would be best if you cite those sources. I can give you access to the deleted article if you need the text, but just recreated a copy of what was deleted would probably get deleted. --W.marsh 01:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RPG World Online on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of RPG World Online. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. This can be located at: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_November_12 Aquatics 04:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

GFP Personal Finance Manager on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of GFP Personal Finance Manager. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.--DryBitterMelon 08:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Garner plagerism

The Jay Garner article blantanly plagerizes Bob Woodward's "State of Denial". Several unmarked quotes in the article match the book's description word for word 67.150.40.53 16:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)![reply]

Thanks, we're looking into it. I removed five paragraphs that seemed to copy and pasted in by one user, let me know if that fixed all the problems you'd noticed. --W.marsh 17:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Request for help

Geez, you are too fast. I was still searching around when noticed your second message. The diff appears to be the right one. Too much information without source. And there are some straight quotes from the work, a part of which can be seen at arabist.net/archives/2006/10/01/always-look-on-the-bright-side-of-life -- ReyBrujo 17:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Hi W.marsh, and thanks very much for your support during my recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of 64/0/0. I am grateful for the overwhelming support I received from the community, and hope I will continue to earn your trust as I expand my participation on Wikipedia. It goes without saying that if you ever need anything and I can help, please let me know. Wait, I guess it does go with saying. ; ) --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 22:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter Fourteen

I have redirected Chapter Fourteen to The End as the people wanting to merge were in favor of 10-2 to people who wanted it kept.--CyberGhostface 00:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a keep decision doesn't conflict with a merge... I added the merge tags myself. --W.marsh 00:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General Mayhem article deletion

Hello,

I was surprised to see that when I wanted to go to the General Mayhem today, it no longer existed. I went to AFD and found its corresponding vote page, and am quite disappointed that it got deleted. Gen[M]ay is an extremely popular online forum with almost 20 million posts and gets 33 thousand hits in Google. The AFD vote also ended with 3 deletes and 4 keeps, suggesting to me that it should not have been deleted. I now regret not putting that page on my watchlist, because had I know about the AfD I would have voted Strong Keep.

Is there any way you'd consider undeleting it? I think there's evidence that this online community is notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia, and even if the article has problems with sources or prose or whatever, it's worth undeleting so that it can be improved.

Thank you, —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would need to meet WP:WEB, no evidence was presented that it did. If you have reliable third party sources with meaningful information on this webpage, okay I'll undelete. Otherwise... you'll have to go to WP:DRV. --W.marsh 01:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finding reliable third party sources is incredibly difficult for anything relating to the Internet culture. A forum like Gen[M]ay can be absolutely huge by Internet standards yet never catch the interest of any news organization in the mainstream. Gen[M]ay is mentioned on quite a few web pages, but those pages certainly don't seem to hold up to the scrutiny that you'd like to see.

I dunno what to say, man. I see a lot of good articles on Internet-related cultural stuff get sent to AfD. Some survive [1][2], and others don't. This case is particularly frustrating for me though, because through my experiences online I know this website is notable yet there's no definitive evidence I can link you to to prove it if the number of forum posts and the Google search haven't convinced you already. Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well ultimately WP:WEB is what we should be using to determine inclusion of websites. If you'd like to write articles on websites, I'm sure there are other Wikis that would allow it, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and (in theory at least) our articles are based on reliable sources. --W.marsh 01:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no offense, but I feel I need to dispute this in WP:DR. You've already heard my reasoning. Thanks for explaining your point of view and trying to help me out. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General Mayhem on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of General Mayhem. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Actuarial Outpost on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Actuarial Outpost. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. Avi 21:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dalbury's RfA

My RfA passed with a tally of 71/1/0. Thank you very much for your support. I hope that my performance as an admin will not disappoint you. Please let me know if you see me doing anything inappropriate. -- Donald Albury 10:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Parodies featured on Arthur

I don't understand, why was the result no consensus? The article is nothing but fancruft and original research (For example, one of the parodies is mentioned as Teletubbies just because kids on a TV show have the same colors as them). I'd like to hear your reason for keeping the article up, thanks! DietLimeCola 23:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Parodies featured on Arthur. DietLimeCola 22:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squick (2nd nomination)

The problem with this was that Guy forgot to put up the AfD tag on the article, so I only tagged it a couple of minutes ago. I think it should go, but we should give the editors of the article a chance to chime in. ~ trialsanderrors 22:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, I remember seeing your name as the admin who relisted it, knowing that it was originally listed on the 9th... oh well. I've gone ahead and reversed my actions. But to avoid this, be sure to de-transclude an AfD from the old page when you relist it. Otherwise you run the risk of exactly what just happened happening. --W.marsh 22:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parodies featured on Arthur on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Parodies featured on Arthur. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just Dial

I'm the e-Business manager for Just Dial communications. I have added Just Dial's customer's testimonials on the company information. I had no intentions to advertise the company as they were written by its own customers. I'd like to add Just Dial Communications under Canadian telecommunication companies directory. And this time I will just include the corporate information. Thanks. Harun Tasci —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaleon (talk • contribs)

I have deleted it as it is a recreation of deleted material, deleted by User:Lucky 6.9 2 weeks ago. Take it up with him, or if you rewrite the article (hopefully to assert meeting WP:CORP - the applicable guideline here) it shouldn't be eligible for speedy deletion. But generally we encourage people not to write articles about things themselves or their employers... see WP:AUTO. --W.marsh 13:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cry Me a River (1953 song)

Hey, looks like you accidentally copied the Charles Mingus article onto the Cry Me a River (1953 song) article. I fixed it up, but you had me most confused for a second! ;) Anyway, just thought you might want to know, best of luck! --Falcorian ^(talk) 06:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, I was testing some new software, guess it was even buggier than I'd thought! Thanks for fixing that. --W.marsh 17:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Koji Yokogawa

Dear W.Marsh I am contacting you because you are an administrator with recent activity on AfD, and I am hoping you are online and able to respond quickly. There is an article about mathemetician Koji Yokogawa being considered for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koji Yokogawa. I suggested that the need for documentation of this professor's notability could be addressed by contacting the professor himself. Acting on my own advice, I sent a regular email to this professor at his university e-mail address which I foud by doing a google search. The professor responded to me immediately by return e-mail stating that the information on the Wikipedia article about him was nonsense, that it should be deleted immediately, and that he was very angry. I can provide you or any administrator with a forwarded copy of this email privately. I think that this article needs to be deleted with all haste and salted to prevent re-creation, since this article has been posted and reposted after deletion multiple times. Thank you in advance for your help. OfficeGirl 17:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I'm not a big fan of early closings but I didn't really see the harm in this case. --W.marsh 17:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks

Thanks!
Thanks for your input on my (nearly recent) Request for adminship, which regretfully achived no consensus, with votes of 68/28/2. I am grateful for the input received, both positive and in opposition, and I'd like to thank you for your participation.
Georgewilliamherbert 06:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: venture pages

Thanks for moving and not deleting these pages. --Carterhawk 12:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:27 Club

Could you point me to a second AfD on the 27 Club article? Your tagging of the Talk page talks about a March 2006 AfD, but I can find nothing in the article's history around that time frame. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the link on the talk page, so it should point to the AfD I was actually referring to now. As this was 8 months ago I really don't remember the AfD but I suppose my note should explain what my rationale was at the time. --W.marsh 21:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was planning on re-nominating it as a recreation, but I guess there's no point in that. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (U.S. state highways)#Another question regarding linking

Can you please take a look here? Thank you. --NE2 09:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is really not my field, sorry... I don't really feel comfortable commenting on this topic all that much at the moment, not enough time to research. --W.marsh 14:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

linkless page: Statistical Finance -> Statistical finance

The reasons for the links is that the page name should be "Statistical finance" and not "Statistical Finance". The capital letter on the second word seems to be a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.31.9.82 (talk • contribs)

I moved it to the correct titled. --W.marsh 18:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lincolnshire Pallets Article

You left a message on the article saying hyperlinks must be introduced and i am confused because there are quite a few in there already. If you could get back to me about this i would be very grateful. Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Messymike (talk • contribs)

It refers to links TO that article from OTHER articles. You can view these by clicking "What links here" in the left sidebar. If there are incoming links, feel free to remove the template. --W.marsh 18:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]

Yes, i understand that but what i mean is that there are links to articles, such as Lincolnshire, United Kingdom etc etc.

there are no article links to Lincolnshire Pallets (see [3]). --W.marsh 18:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tag

Just before there has been a "technical" mistake. Sorry.

Please, could you remove for me the tag "orphaned articles" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Mayer Thanks a lot.

Wfxy 19:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco, California

I blame society. That way, it's everyone's fault. HalfShadow 23:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Airline Programs

Just wanted to let you know that the Marco Polo Club article was still in discussion and that so far only one particular user feels intent on removing such pages even though the wikiproject guidelines on airlines/airports clearly say that such programs should have their own pages. I think this is a classic example of this individual user imposing his own POV on the wiki community. In fact I believe that the article should be kept/expanded and the AfD removed immediately unless a change in the guideline through consensus can be made. Thanks! Parnell88 20:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there was a consensus to redirect/merge on the AfD, so I closed it that way, if you disagreed you could have said something. At any rate, redirecting doesn't need an AfD, no deletion was made, so you can reverse it if you want, though you might run into trouble if there isn't consensus to do that. But for now I have no problem with it... just remove the AfD from the article, the AfD is over. --W.marsh 21:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. Actually I have never supported/opposed an AfD on an article before so I didn't realize there was another page to write on. I did write quite a bit on the discussion page of the article and the guideline page of the wikiproject. If it is not too much trouble, can you note that on the discussion or somewhere that the wikiproject guidelines should be respected and remove the AfD. Otherwise, I know Dbinder is going to go ballistic and say I changed an admin's decision without first discussing with you. Thanks! Parnell88 21:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can point him right to this thread on my talk page, it should be sufficient to explain where the article stands in terms of redirecting or staying a seperate article. I have gone ahead and removed the AfD though. --W.marsh 23:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update on this thread, DBinder feels that I have gone against consensus even though it was explained to him that the wikiproject guidelines represent a larger consensus on the frequent flyer programs. He started a thread to discuss changing the project guideline two weeks ago with no responses so far. I think wiki guidelines are there for important reasons and should be respected. As an admin I'm sure you understand this reasoning more than most others. It would be much appreciated if you could talk to him about this since you were involved in removing the AfD. Thanks! Parnell88 01:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Mike1/RfA-thanks-archive

hi, I mistakenly tagged this page for deletion. Could you please restore it? And thanks a lot for clearing out my useless userpage stuff! - Mike 21:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --W.marsh 21:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. - Mike 21:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please also restore User:Mike1/old and delete User:Mike1? I would like to get back my old reversion history and move it back to my main userpage. - Mike 01:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --W.marsh 01:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. But I made a slight error. What I actually need you to restore is User talk:Mike1/old userpage. Sorry for the confusion, and thanks again! - Mike 01:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your support!

A week ago I nominated myself, with the idea of helping Wikipedia as an administrator as much as a WikiGnome. An idea that, I must say, Interiot and you helped me develop. Thus, even though many others shared my thoughts, without you both I would not have expressed my desire to broaden my possibilities. I thank you again for your trust and willingness to teach. I will use these tools to protect and prevent and not to harass or punish. Should you feel I am overreacting, pat me so that I can correct myself. Thank you very much! ReyBrujo 22:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Spanish Gibraltarians

I see you have commented out my request for speedy deletion on the inaccurate article which has been subject to a successful Afd. My interpretation of the procedures is that having been deleted it should not be re-instated in any form it is subject to a review, because the creator is 'unhappy'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Spanish_Gibraltarians

BUT I understand the content is in any event available to administrators.

There was a clear consensus to delete it, based on its merit. As a Gibraltarian I find it inaccurate offensive racist propaganda and what little truth there is in it is already covered in existing articles. Rather than engage in an edit war with the author, as I did when he posted lengthy spanish texts on the Gibraltar talk pages falsly claiming institutional criminality, I have tried to politely get it removed and the neutral respondents to the RfD supported that view unanimously.

Your assistance in bringing this to a conclusion would be appreciated.

--Gibnews 00:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, you've totally confused me, I can't figure out what you're saying I have done. As far as I can tell, I've done nothing related to this article or its DRV/AfD. --W.marsh 00:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD on College Tonight

Hi there. I'm a bit puzzled by your closing the College Tonight AfD as Wait, rather than just relisting it and perhaps notifying the people you thought should see it if you didn't think enough people had yet weighed in or enough time had passed, especially since the Delete votes this time directly addressed the few points (well, one point) raised in favor of Keep in the previous attempt. I'm the more puzzled because I see from some other entries on your talk page that you seem to be quite free about deleting articles that are pure advertising. If you read the version before my edit and doubt that this one was anything else, I'm really not sure what else to say to you... Also, on the article's talk page, it reports the outcome of the second AfD as "Keep" which is frankly a bizarre thing to say about four Delete votes, two of them "Strong" and none in favor. --Arvedui 14:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The second AfD was listed a day after the first AfD closed. None of the keep voters were notified to see if they changed their mind. The first AfD wasn't even mentioned in the second one. This is not acceptable behavior... I didn't really consider the second AfD a valid one at all, and it's not my job to make it one (relisting, notifying, etc.) --W.marsh 15:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Ok, I guess I can understand having a problem with it on technical grounds, though the first AfD was clearly mentioned and accessible from the template, and two votes included comments to say "media mentions notwithstanding", which was the only substantive point the previous Keepers raised. But I also see that you like to invoke WP:SNOW from time to time... do you seriously believe that this article stands a snowball's chance of being kept around over anything like the long term? Also, you didn't say anything about calling four delete votes with none opposing a decision to "Keep". --Arvedui 16:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I said the second AfD was invalid in my opinion... so change it from "keep" to "invalid AfD" if you must but the net effect is the same. Also I don't know that I've "invoked WP:SNOW" ever, let alone recently... what you're probably referring to are AfDs where no one bothers to present evidence that an article meets WP:WEB or whatever and people are just arguing "let's ignore policy and keep this article because I've heard of this topic and like it" then I'll probably close as a delete... but that's a simple weight of argument closing. In the first AfD, people did present evidence that it met WP:WEB and more sources than just those are cited in the article. Honestly, I'm not sure you realize how much you're asking for me to actually honor an AfD filed a day after the first one closed... I seriously doubt a deletion would have stood on DRV no matter how much I defended it. Just wait a month or two, give it some time. --W.marsh 17:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I am puzzled again, as I was sure I had recently come across an entry or two from people saying you had called SNOW on them, but now I can't seem to find them. My apologies for the mistake! And yes, I'll go change the talk page appropriately, though I still think that if anything qualified for AD/SNOW deletion it would be this one (and I say that as an overall inclusionist!). My main problem with giving it time is that it's quite clear the article was inserted as a blatant ad by one of the site founders, and I really don't want us to reward that any longer than we have to, especially since it was Speedied twice already. Is there really supposed to be a month's wait between AfD attempts? I'm sure I've seen nominations literally days apart which ended up getting an article deleted (not that I'm always happy about that). Is it possible just to re-open, relist, and have someone notify the Keepers from the previous round? (I'd volunteer to do the last two myself if the first is possible.) --Arvedui 17:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can do that if you really want but I don't understand the rush personally. I won't participate in the AfD so long as you're upfront about the situation, but I will close it if no one else does after 6-7 days. And I can't guarantee that someone else won't speedy close an AfD listed today. --W.marsh 18:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, wrong technical background of 2nd AfD lies on my shoulders. I did not proceed that technically good, but I hope this is so obvious spam that it does not matter. Tulkolahten 19:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding previous keepers, I am pretty sure one of them (IP user only) was misused, because there are two entries of this user only - 7th May and 5th November voting for keep and nothing more. Tulkolahten 19:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm a bit confused... I thought "relisting" was a standard term used when extend the time-limit on an existing AfD discussion to allow more people to comment. I've seen it used like that all over the place. I'm sorry, I thought it was clear that was what I was asking (and volunteering to do myself, esp since one of your objections to doing that in the first place was that it made more work for you). I don't understand what you mean by saying the current vote is too convoluted to count for anything, either. Is the difference in process between re-opening and extending the term of the current debate and starting a whole new one really that important to the outcome, besides my having to go spend even more time on it now than I would have otherwise? Seriously, if ever there were a time to talk about snowballs, I think this would be one of them... --Arvedui 02:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has to do with figuring out what people meant when I (or anyone) closes the AfD. If they didn't know there'd been an AfD a day beforehand, I can't reasonably say the delete voters would have still wanted to delete. I might have given you the wrong idea assuming you'd know I meant to create a new AfD... sorry. But one does need to be created, just start from scratch. If this whole thing doesn't seem convoluted to you, you must have a much higher tolerance for confusion than me :-) --W.marsh 02:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anax Imperator (band) deletion

Anax Imperator's page shouldn't have been deleted, as the band conforms to WP:MUSIC "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" pt. 5 and 7. The band is listed with half a page in the norwegian pop & rock encyclopedia, and was a major contributor to the industrial & goth scene in Norway.

It was deleted today by another admin for being a re-creation of the article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anax Imperator (band). You can challenge the deletion at WP:DRV, or talk to the admin who deleted it today, User:Steel359. --W.marsh 17:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the swift answer -- Hba 18:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Just an FYI since you commented similarly on my RfA concerning the bio I created about myself—I responded to trialsanderrors here. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 21:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Coworking"

I diagree with your deleteion of "Coworking" page as an advertisement. This is a new social interaction fenomenon which must be reflected on Wikipedia. Being new, it is sketchy on definition which is still being formed. I put the article as a starting point in hope that later other people (myself included) would extend it further. As to advertisment, it does not advertize any group, company or a product. It links to independent open Wiki system (like wikipedia!) which list several alternative cowroking locations around the world. They are all independent and many if not most of them are non-profit. I do not see how this constitutes and advertisement. Google search on "Coworking" gives close to half of a million results and I feel that this work should have definition in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vzaliva (talk • contribs)

Have any independent, reliable sources written about this? See WP:WEB for our internet topic inclusion guidelines... Wikipedia really isn't the place to document brand new stuff, wait until other sources have written about it, then cite those sources. --W.marsh 22:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD/ZineWiki

Thank you for your attention to ZineWiki's AfD discussion. While I disagree with some accounts being branded 'meatpuppets' in the archived discussion (noticing none of the new accounts who voted to delete were branded as such) - I am happy the article was not deleted. I also realize you were not the user to brand the other new accounts as meatpuppets. Thanks again for your time. Alanlastufka 23:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Evagelopoulos

Dear Sir,

As I see, you have deleted some information about me, Andreas Evagelopoulos, which I posted at your site, with the explanation of "it is an article about a person, group of people, band, club, company or website that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)" I can assure you that I am a very famous person at my country, Greece, as an actor, performer and showman as well as an official breeder of Chihuahua dogs with F.C.I and Κ.Ο.Ε of purity certificates. My customers are always major personalities from all over the world, so I am not doing this for promotion purposes, since I do not have the need of publicity.

I also have a website, promoting the personality of my good friend, Paris Hilton, instead of exposing her sex life, like the majority of other websites do.

My intentions are non-profiteering.

At your user page, you introduce your self as a wikpedia administrator...

At the comment that I quoted, I am introducing myself with my attributes, giving to your users some extra data, such as the name of the second dog that my friend Paris Hilton bought from me, Bambi, confirming the accuracy of your data about the price of Tinker bell, since I am the sole accurate source for this information.

Therefore, please re-establish my quote as a confirmation of the data that you have already post, and as an addition to complete the total information about the dog ownership of my friend Paris Hilton.

Thank you for your time. Andreas Evagelopoulos—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.45.118 (talk • contribs)

Write the article and assert importance, and mention one or more published sources that confirm this importance. If those sources don't exist, sorry, no article. But we discourage people from writing articles about themselves, see WP:AUTO. --W.marsh 14:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir

There is a link under MY name. If it is supposed to ad an information, then for what this information should be? For Mars?! The source for the informations I posted is www.chihuahua.gr

Thank you

Deletion of CallMe Communications

Hello W.Marsh,

I am writing to you in regards to the deletion of article CallMe Communications. To begin I would like a copy of the article so I can re-write it. I would appreciate if you gave some notice before an article is deleted just so you know CallMe Communications Ltd. as a company has a "good will" program which in our first year of existance has donated over $1500 to WIKIPEDIA and I think a little bit of respect is owed, being a Australian company about to go public it is in our best interest to have an article on WikiPedia. I need a reply from you ASAP, otherwise I will consider stopping donations to WikiPedia, At this stage I would like a copy of the deleted article and for you to let me know somethings that need alteration.

Kind Regards,

Jacob Reichman Director CallMe Communications Ltd. Tel: +613 8640 0998 email: jacob@callme.com.au

Well, people are generally discouraged from writing about themselves or their company on Wikipedia, it's a conflict of interest, as Wikipedia is not for self-promotion and all articles must be neutral and based on reliably published information. At any rate, I have moved the page to User:Callmeau/temp and you can have at it. I suggest you look at WP:CORP, our inclusion guide for articles on corporations, this article does not currently assert meeting it, and will need to do so if it's to be included in Wikipedia. While I'm sure the foundation appreciates your company's donations, article representation on Wikipedia is not for sale. Please note that I'm not a Wikimedia Foundation employee, just a Wikipedia volunteer, so my actions are not necisarrily those of the group your donations went to. --W.marsh 01:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-write of Boston Beatdown

I tried to rewrite the Boston Beatdown article so that it was not biased and had more notablility please let me know what you think. If it is good can we remove the notability tmeplate. Cheers MC Markco1 04:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptional balance

May I please have this article userfied? Although I now agree that its deletion was valid (it seems my teacher was wrong about it being an accepted term), I can at least partially source it once I find out what it's actually called. I would appreciate a reply on my user talk page. Neon Merlin 04:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel better soon,

Hope you get better soon. Get some rest. JoshuaZ 05:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Owen Spencer-Thomas

Hi Could you advise me on how best to make the link "See List of feudal baronies." in the biog of Owen Spencer-Thomas. The link with father Ivor checks out with the College of Arms, London. Yawja 22:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I can't really understand your question. What are you trying to do exactly? --W.marsh 23:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm trying to cut unnecessary words. With most lists you simply enter a name and it links directly to the list, such as the categories.

So in "His father, Ivor Spencer-Thomas, held the feudal barony of Buquhollie and Freswick in Caithness, Scotland. See List of feudal baronies." I'm attempting to get a direct link to the list from "Ivor Spencer-Thomas" and then the words "See List of feudal baronies." can be deleted as redundant. Hope this makes it clear. Yawja 21:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coulrophilia

You closed the AfD on Coulrophilia but you never deleted the article. Would you do that please? Cheers, MartinDK 10:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks

Hi, thank you for supporting my RfA. However, you forgot to sign, Amarkov placed an unsigned template after your support, perhaps you would like to replace it with your signature.

I appreciate your support especially, as I respect the contributions you give. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... I haven't been editting so much lately, I guess old habits don't die so hard after all. --W.marsh 00:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington Online Learning Institute

I would respectfully ask you to reconsider the closure of this AfD. The issue of accreditation seems to have been resolved, after much back and forth with the article's creator. The status of "MEMStip" does indicate that the school is indeed in the first phase of full membership, making it the first and only online school to be granted accreditation by Middle States, one of the nation's six regional accreditation bodies. Not only is the two votes to one result not indicative of a consensus, one of the individuals who voted to delete seems to be a single-purpose account in existence for a single day devoted almost entirely to AfDs. This individual's justification for closure -- that the school is not accredited -- is not factual. I strongly urge that this person's vote be considered in this light. While I would be hard pressed to argue that the article should be kept, a "no consensus" or even relisting the AfD, would be more appropriate in light of the full set of circumstances. Alansohn 00:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 people reviewed the evidence and still felt that the article should be deleted... I dunno, if you couldn't argue that the article should be kept why did you vote to keep? --W.marsh 00:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Oh, the humanity!

I had my doubts about a second RfA, but even I couldn't have predicted the way it caught fire and inexorably drifted to the ground in flames, causing quite a stir on its way down. Still, it was encouraging to see the level of support and confidence. Thank you for yours, and for the chance to clarify my stance by answering your question. I hope I'll still have your support the next time around. Kafziel ^Talk 13:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, I passed. I appreciate your input. Please keep an eye on me(if you want) to see if a screw up. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jack Abramoff-related organizations

I disagree with the deletion of that page. There was some real research and value to the article; I'm happy to do the work to make it look more like a standard Wikipedia article with more references. But unless I've missed something list pages are still acceptable on Wikipedia. --The Cunctator 19:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just closing the AfD... you can either take it to WP:DRV or if there's a consensus amongst editors of the Abramoff articles to include these lists, then go ahead an undelete (you are an admin, right?) --W.marsh 19:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so. Just haven't been paying attention to the baroque deletion/undeletion rules these days. I'd note that none of the editors of the Abramoff articles were involved in the discussion. --The Cunctator 20:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irascible Professor

I am involved in another AfD, Articles for deletion/Suite101.com, and noticed an unusual pattern involving two editors. I have noted them on the AfD talk page. I think Rough (talk · contribs) and Youtrue (talk · contribs) are meatpuppets or sockpuppets.

Your only other "keep" comment was from Bessielil (talk · contribs) -- his only Wikipedia contribution to date.

I suspect there really was a consensus to delete with just one against. --A. B. 21:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kafenio also appeared to have Rough and Youtrue working in cahoots. I have left a note for Robdurbar, who closed that AfD. If interested, you might want to look at the slightly different pattern there. --A. B. 21:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little more history and drama at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roberta Beach Jacobson -- herding these cats must be why you admins make all the money around here! Cheers, --A. B. 21:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest filing a request at WP:RFCU to try to confirm that they're sockpuppets, then they can be blocked or limited to one account as is appropriate, or to just mention the suspicion in any still-open AfD so the closer can take that into account. --W.marsh 21:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to than A.B. for calling me a puppet, but I am not. If you see my edit history you will notice that the overall pattern is totally different. Reasons for the coincedences are explained in the talk of Suite101 AfD, and they are very simple : Both YouTrue and me have contributed to Suite101, to Kafenio and wwe are friends of M. Shapiro od IP ... so naturally we would not vote against it. Rough 00:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 66.79.167.173

You're likely on this already, but I can't delete this user's most recent edits because I'm at work with an older version of IE. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They all seem to be gone except for [4] and it's unclear (at a glance) whether that's vandalism or not. --W.marsh 01:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good, then, someone got rid of the personal info edits. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- Deleted incivil edits from 63.231.21.187 (talk • contribs • logs) -- —Doug Bell ^talk 06:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... I sure bring out the best in people. --W.marsh 16:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion protocol question

I see your name a lot as the closer of the AfD discussions that I participate in. So, I'm hoping you can answer a deletion protocol related question for me.

I ran across this article -> Lumas and figured that it was not an appropriate subject for an article (maybe a mention on the band page). I vacillated between a speedy delete tag and a prod tag before, perhaps wrongly, settling on a prod tag. The prod was not acted on within 5 days, so an anon removed the tag saying the 5 days had elapsed. I think that is inappropriate by the anon, but I am not certain what the correct next step is. My inclination is to revert the removal of the prod tag. However, for my wikieducation, I would like to ask your thoughts as to whether: (1) I should have used a speedy template; and (2) the best move at this point is to revert the deletion of the prod or take it to AfD. Any thoughts greatly appreciated. -Kubigula (ave) 22:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and deleted it... it really shouldn't be removed unless someone actually objects to deletion. If the band had an article (apparently it doesn't) I'd suggest a merge/redirect there. --W.marsh 00:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old Louisville

Hi, how's it going? Since you seem to be a caretaker of Old Louisville, I just wanted to alert you to the last change by Ocacna. I'm not sure if the changes are good or not. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the most problematic part of the article... the regions section kind of borders on original research and the formatting is screwed up. I'm not really sure that what was just removed is entirely backed up by published sources, but what was added is, so from that perspective it isn't a problem. When I finally get around to making the final push towards getting the article to FA status, I will be overhauling the region section so everything is cited... I'll certainly remember what was removed when I do that and reintroduce it if I find sources. Thanks for pointing it out and of course feel free to make any changes. --W.marsh 16:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General Mayhem

Hi,

I'm a poster over at Genmay, and I'd like to give you some of the reasons we should be included in wikipedia as a relevant and notable internet forum.

1. We are a spin off, of the notable forum [H]ardForums. Our creation is one of the most interesting and buisness oriented stories a forum has gone through. 2. Our unique system of self moderation through donations and general attitude towards donations in general. 3. Sanjay, one of the forum owners, has told us time and time again that 'content is king.' We have created some of the most notable internet phenomenon in existence. We did, at one time, one of the largest community Drawball projects, created one of the most read threads on the internet, and pranked the world, by creating www.walkenforpres.com . Our shenanigans, in that one instance, reached from the Washington Post Style Section, to being the most searched article on Technorati. 4. We are recognized all over the net as the most vicious and banded together group of misfits, and if you let the Mighty Ducks in, you must let us in.

Genmay member for life, TheJesus uid 10737

WP:WEB, WP:V same as in the DRV. If the forum is so important, there should be meaningful third-part coverage of general mayhem, enough to write an article on. Many people think their webforum is notable... the question is whether anyone else cares enough to write about it. --W.marsh 21:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I said I would give an admin who protected a smiley face.

-Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main page protection

I was keeping track of the AN/I discussion- and there was no new discussion there to justify a second block. Most of the bad vandalism seems to come from the same users, one of whom has been blocked by Titoxd.Borisblue 01:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless just reversing admin actions repeatedly is not good. --W.marsh 01:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the first one? Oh, you mentioned that you would lift it after 10 or so minutes, so I just did it after the time passed. That one I should probably have waited. At any rate, the vandalism seems to have died down. Borisblue 02:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

linkless template review

Your Marshbot tagged Edwin Scheier, an article I've been focusing on. I have yet to fully flesh it out, but would appreciate your review of it's linkiness(is that a word?) and remove the tag or give suggestions. THank you. ThuranX 03:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are no incoming links from articles... meaning very few readers will see the article, so the problem of being linkless still exists. Create some links or leave the template up. See User:MarshBot's page for more information on this... incoming links are an important part of making sure an article grows over time. --W.marsh 03:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. I'm an idiot. I read that entire template as 'this article has no links' not, nothing else has links to here. Nevermind, got it, thanks. ThuranX 04:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Small reminder

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CURURU

Remember to remove the {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|W}} when closing a debate.
152.91.9.144 06:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said before... I don't remove these things by choice. They just appeared one day, screaming at closers, commanding them to do another procedural step that could easilly be done by bots or even a smarter template perhaps... not a good way to impliment something. --W.marsh 15:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can respect that, I just wasn't aware of your stance. Sorry for poking that exposed nerve! ^_^
152.91.9.144 22:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Down syndrome

This is ridiculous - is more than once a minute really the norm for the main page? Sheesh - I would never subject Tourette syndrome to this. Sandy (Talk) 20:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It varies... the only FA I've written to be on the main page, the highly boring Shotgun house, got relatively little vandalism and a lot of productive edits. Others have gotten hitten so hard we needed full protection for a period of time. Some of it has to do with the day of the week and time of the year... some is the subject matter's appeals to the average vandal (teenage males). I am thinking more and more that we should just semi-protect them... it would be nice if there was a layer in between semi-protect and nothing, where people who'd been warned for vandalism can't edit the page. --W.marsh 21:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certain that the FA I wrote (Tourette syndrome) would be massacred far worse than DS if it ever appeared on the main page - which is why I won't even consider submitting it. There needs to be some awareness that some articles, by nature, simply will be hit harder than others, and a hard and fast policy doesn't always make sense (ignore all rules and all that). Sandy (Talk) 21:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linkless article fix-up

I believe I solved the problem with this linkless article. There is a variant spelling fixup and I've chosen to merge and clean the two articles under fix-up. This is the first time that I've merged files. Let me know if I did it properly. I'll be adding to this article over the next few days. Mhhutchins —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mhhutchins (talk • contribs) 03:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Looks fine to me, thanks. --W.marsh 03:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linkless article (fix-up)

I believe I solved the problem with this linkless article. There is a variant spelling (fixup) and I've chosen to merge and clean the two articles under fix-up. This is the first time that I've merged articles. Let me know if I did it properly. I'll be adding to the article over the next few days. Mhhutchins 03:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

FYI

Small thing: Template:Oldafdfull says that it should not be subst'ed out. -Patstuart^talk|edits 18:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Iron Ring Clock

Hi W.Marsh,

I'm the original author for the Iron Ring Clock article. Since you have decided there is no consensus for deletion, can I remove the AfD tag from the page?

Burtonpe 20:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be gone, right? I removed it when I closed the AfD. Make sure you're looking at the most current version of the page: [5] --W.marsh 21:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is now...I thought I had refreshed but I guess not. Thanks! Burtonpe 00:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball

Hello, thanks for your message. I considered the debate's closure carefully, and I see no need to think again. "Baseball editors" do not own the baseball articles and categories, and categories are not provided as a way for "baseball editors" to create lists. The lists of players picked would be better in articles about each game, or about the series as a whole. Take it to deletion review if you want. As for the duplicate categories, I take exception to your statement that it is "screwing up" articles: duplicate categories are not a problem, so the robot has improved these articles by reducing the category clutter. If you can demonstrate to me that duplicate categories are a major problem then I will stop my bot and let another one implement the changes. Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 16:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm sorry it came across as snooty. Perhaps "screwing up" is polite in American usage? I'm really sorry if you were offended. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this communication with people you don't know and can't see is sometimes fraught, isn't it? I really didn't mean to come across as grumpy, but I can quite see, reading through again what I wrote, why you thought I was. I must have messed up, because civility is my watchword on Wikipedia. Sorry again.

You mentioned WP:AWB. Perhaps you could find someone with AWB (I haven't got dot net 2.0 or I'd do it myself) willing to run through the articles in the top category to remove any duplicate categories when my robot has finished? --RobertG ♬ talk 17:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeouinaru Station on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Yeouinaru Station. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ... Hi. I put this up for review due to the number of keep vs. delete votes and the issue of precendent and inherent notability. Feel free to weigh in. Thanks! --Oakshade 00:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting AfD

RE: Will do. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 11:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Article: Albert R. Jonsen

My article on Albert R. Jonsen was deleted because it was copied from a website, cpmc.og/ethics... I work for that hospital, the wensite you refer to, and I also wrote the content that appears on the site. It is MY work and in MY own words. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mcgaugj (talk • contribs) 16:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I'd need the exact name of the article... there's not been an article at Albert R. Jonsen. Anyway you'd need to release the text under the GFDL, see Wikipedia:Copyright, and an original article for Wikipedia with encyclopedic tone and formatting is vastly preferred to a text dump. --W.marsh 17:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Marek

Can you please explain why this article gets deleted when the Keeps outweighted the Deletes? MadMaxDog 05:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because AfD is not a vote? Reliable sources were called for and not provided... everything was sourced to her official webpage. See WP:V and WP:NOR. --W.marsh 18:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So in the end you decided. How nice. Then again there is the little thing saying "after which the deletion process proceeds based on Wikipedia community consensus." Note the word consensus? We had none, we had keeps slightly outweighing the deletes. And that was with 15+ participants, which is reasonably large for an AfD discussion, especially for an article which certainly wasn't linked to or in any current news.

- In the end, why did we have the discussion, when you simply were going to overrule it on points? MadMaxDog 05:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I closed based on what happened in the discussion. Had the relevent issues been addressed, I wouldn't have deleted it. --W.marsh 15:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]