Joey Boland – new article created during the discussion, history restored underneath, relisting at editorial discretion – GRBerry 04:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Joey Boland (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`AfD`)` Senior hurler playing at the highest level, is quite notible Gnevin 19:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and list. "Non-notable" isn't a speedy criterion, so "non-notable as written" is even less, implying as it does that the guy really is notable. -Amarkov moo! 20:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] As the closing admin, I'd like to point out that the article was unclear as to whether the man was playing at the highest level or not. I'm perfectly willing to believe that he is/was, but there was no indication that I could see in the article. Indeed, the fact that the article had been marked for a speedy deletion led me to believe that he probably was not. When I write "non-notable", I see that as another way of saying "db-bio" (a practice I'm willing to change if it confuses things for people), and as the assertion of notability was unclear, that was what I felt the case to be. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Four news.google.com hits. He plays for Dublin in the National Hurling League. Sounds like reasonable notability to me, allow recreation. Corvus cornix 02:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] For the record, I'm not objecting if that's the decision. I'll call it an education in hurling. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] I'm going to say overturn and relist - I don't think the National Hurling League is the top level of the sport - that would be the All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship - but input from somebody who knows more about Irish sport would be appropriate. -- BPMullins \| Talk 16:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Joey Boland – new article created during the discussion, history restored underneath, relisting at editorial discretion – GRBerry 04:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Senior hurler playing at the highest level, is quite notible Gnevin 19:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and list. "Non-notable" isn't a speedy criterion, so "non-notable as written" is even less, implying as it does that the guy really is notable. -Amarkov moo! 20:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the closing admin, I'd like to point out that the article was unclear as to whether the man was playing at the highest level or not. I'm perfectly willing to believe that he is/was, but there was no indication that I could see in the article. Indeed, the fact that the article had been marked for a speedy deletion led me to believe that he probably was not. When I write "non-notable", I see that as another way of saying "db-bio" (a practice I'm willing to change if it confuses things for people), and as the assertion of notability was unclear, that was what I felt the case to be. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Four news.google.com hits. He plays for Dublin in the National Hurling League. Sounds like reasonable notability to me, allow recreation. Corvus cornix 02:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'm not objecting if that's the decision. I'll call it an education in hurling. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to say overturn and relist - I don't think the National Hurling League is the top level of the sport - that would be the All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship - but input from somebody who knows more about Irish sport would be appropriate. -- BPMullins | Talk 16:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Jeopardy! in popular culture – no decision so relisted at AFD for further discussion – GRBerry 04:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jeopardy! in popular culture (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`AfD`)` No consensus for deletion with misinterpretation of WP:COI by closing admin. Original AfD debate received 4 delete votes and 3 keep votes. Admin's closure of debate can be interpreted as a fifth delete vote. Is 5-3 a consensus decision tally? In the explanation for his decision, closing admin considered keep votes invalid as they came from users with edits on the article, claiming WP:COI. This is a misinterpretation of WP:COI. The fact that users have contibuted edits to an article does not imply a conflict of interest, as would be the case if the page were a vanity page. No "delete" voter addressed that the article is part of a family of articles spun off from a main article that is already much too large. One delete voter apparently wrote an essay which predates his delete vote in the AfD by a couple of days and mirrors my thinking as elaborated in my comments in the AfD (but comes to a different conclusion). It is worth noting here that this essay is neither policy nor does it solve the actual problem it purports to, viz., the growth-and-deletion cycle of trivia (as pointed out in the essay's talk page). More broadly, I believe it is imperative for Wikipedia to discuss and set firmer guidelines regarding what constitutes trivia (or what is often denigratingly referred to as "cruft", among other terms) and what constitutes the sensible aggregation of useful information on a notable topic in an article apart from the topic's main article. Battles of the American Civil War consists of listings of facts not incorporated into the text of an article, but no one would call it cruft. Finally, I would propose that what some users call "trivia" or "cruft" is actually the very thing that makes Wikipedia interesting and useful, as I touched on in the AfD in question. I would refer the reader to this post, which makes the point better than I could ("this is the kind of thing it really excels at: elaborate, collaborative categorizations of previously uncategorized items"), and note that one of the articles mentioned in the post appears to have already succumbed to an AfD. I should like to see a new culture that rejects and combats the culling trend which appears, from my perspective, to be entirely based on the (non-policy) feelings of a vocal minority of users. Robert K S 09:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment. As a side note (you can see that I voted to overturn below), I doubt that the closing admin meant his remarks on "conflict of interest" to be a reference to COI in the Wikipedia sense, as opposed to a standard-parlance observation that editors of an article like to see it stay on the site. The votes shouldn't simply be discounted, but he isn't wrong there. Conversely, I don't really understand the closer's points about a weak reason turning a strong keep vote into a keep vote. Weak reasons are weak reasons. Dekimasu よ! 12:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment no opinion on this as yet, I'd like to here more from the closing admin since the COI comments do see most off. However some comments on the above - the standard AFD is not a vote, being spun off from one article doesn't make any difference (doesn't add any legitimacy to the content) and the the on the broader issue I'm not convinced there is any need, but regardless this isn't the place to try and define them. --pgk 09:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment like pgk says, AfD is not a vote, please don't directly use vote-counting as a way of saying that the article has no consensus. Secondly, Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles seems to be totally ignored when spinning these articles off - article content still has to be attributable, and no amount of usefulness will negate this need. The problem with the Battle of the American Civil War analogy is that is a list of battles with no interpretation - an "in popular culture" article is bound to have tons of analysis on what's popular culture, and if the mention is deemed to be a reference - thus the need for reliable sourcing, but almost always it's a trap for unsourced interpretation or speculation. ColourBurst 15:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment - I was the closing admin. here is an archived link of a discussion I had explaning my decision. I am going to be away from the computer for a while. I still stand by my originial decision. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion in popular culture. Pop culture sections in articles are cruft-o-ramas. Split out into separate articles to remove the cruft, they lack any redeeming features. Trim "in popular culture" sections back to one or two every few weeks, leave it at that. Guy (Help!) 23:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion Otto4711 00:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion per my arguments on the afd, also, the editor should look at WP:ATA, as he is making some similar arguments (we have this, let's have that) and such as stated there. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to put every trivial fact, and we should not have pages just full of trivia, or in this disguised "in popular culture" moniker. Booshakla 09:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Thanks, I hadn't seen that before. Robert K S 10:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. In response to the previous comments, please note that DRV is not "AfD part deux"--arguments should generally be limited about the validity of the close. In this case, the close does not seem valid. In addition to a serious misunderstanding by the closing admin as to what WP:COI does and does not entail, I will address two issues: raw numbers and the arguments themselves. Numbers. AfD is not a vote. Majority does not and should not necessarily rule. However, numbers are a part of determining consensus. This discussions was split 5-5 on deleting the article and keeping the content (either as "keep" or "merge"). Arguments. The closing admin discounted the "keep" arguments in his explanation, but let's consider the delete arguments. At least two of the arguments for deletion were suspect, consisting of an unexplained reference to "fancruft" and a reference to WP:NOT#IINFO without specification of which of the 8 things listed there it meets. I am not endorsing the article itself, but the close was inappropriate (and the three comments above all arguments relevant at AfD, but not so much at DRV). -- Black Falcon 17:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE is a statement of principle with 8 specific examples. Those 8 were never intended to be interpreted as a definitive list of all possible kinds of indiscriminate information. Rossami (talk) Comment - Maybye I am wrong but I viewed a merge as the article should not have an article of its own. I guess I have no issue copying the information somewhere so editors can determine what they want to merge. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] No, you are quite right. A merge requires that the content be transferred into another article and that the original article be made into a redirect. So, technically the original title will still exist as an active link, but it's not an article per se (it's just a redirect page). -- Black Falcon 01:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion - WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information is policy. There is a regrettable tendency to think that all facts of this nature are of encyclopedic importance. They aren't. Inappropriate info is added to the main article? Cut it with prejudice, don't create a fork. Interesting and useful? A reputable encyclopedia is more important. Moreover, it is also important that we are not caught up in excess bureaucracy at DRV. Bad articles should stay deleted, particularly when the AfD is within admin discretion. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 22:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and reclose using actual consensus (or lack of) from AFD. It wouldn't be unreasonable to merge (and, obviously, redirect and keep history) as a compromise. --Random832 14:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn; this article did have legitimate content about appearances in other shows and mediums, including parodies and references. I don't find this to be an indiscriminate collection of information; I find it to be an intriguing article. Ral315 » 18:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] WP:INTERESTING. Otto4711 03:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Quote from WP:AADD: "Naturally, citing this essay just by one of its many acronyms (e.g. WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT), without further explanation, is similarly ill advised, for the reasons explained above." -- Black Falcon 03:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] (sigh) For those who need it spelled out for being unable to grasp the shortcut..."it is intriguing" is not a compelling argument. Lots of things are intriguing or interesting or fascinating or really, really, neat without being in the slightest bit proper for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Arguing in favor of an article or in a DRV by saying that an article interests or intrigues you is not likely to be seen as persuasive by many of the people reading the debate. This argument is often summarized by linking to WP:INTERESTING so that people can read it and other similarly uncompelling arguments instead of typing the same thing over and over and over again in discussions, despite the fact that some people have difficulty grasping the utility of shortcutting. I further note that simply copying and pasting the "Naturally..." portion of WP:AADD is not a particularly compelling counter-argument either. Otto4711 14:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Naturally, ... and it was not intended to be a counter-argument. It was intended to point out that it is just as unhelpful to suggest the keeping/deletion of an article because one finds them interesting/uninteresting it as it is to merely write WP:INTERESTING or WP:IDONTLIKEIT after others' comments. And I fully well grasp the utility of shortcuts, but am adverse to their overuse without supporting arguments. But, if you insist on a counter-argument, here's one: Your application of WP:INTERESTING to Ral315's comment is inappropriate as s/he writes "I don't find this to be an indiscriminate collection of information", thereby disputing the primary reason for deletion. -- Black Falcon 23:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Actually she writes that she doesn't find it indiscriminate because she finds it intriguing. Thus, WP:INTERESTING. An interesting indiscriminate collection is still indiscriminate. Otto4711 14:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and relist. While I disagree ideologically with the article's supporters (see my userpage, where trivia is one of the few things I complain about), I recognize the strength of User:Robert K S's argument from the original AfD that the separation was due to the overall length of the Jeopardy! article. I do not see anywhere in the AfD that his concerns were addressed, so on the weight of the arguments, I fail to see this as a consensus to delete. I wouldn't mind my own chance to see the article and sort through the opinions on that basis. "User:Robert K S should also realize that a spun-off article must be able to stand on its own two feet; if it can't, it's an indication that the length of the original article is an artifact, rather than due to the actual breadth of the subject," I might say, if I'd had a good look, and we were rehashing at AfD. But I don't see it as process for process's sake. There's a good chance that the article could be successfully defended from the likes of me. Dekimasu よ! 12:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion -- the consensus is more clear than the "vote count" implies. Two of the comments supported only merging "notable" mentions back to the main article. On further inspection, the notable mentions were already at the main article. The only remaining issue: whether the history should be preserved behind a redirect. No one addressed this but maybe the closer can comment. To me, I think the history we need is already around, since the trivia section was forked off earlier to create this subpage. Mango juice^talk 21:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure. I disagree with the closer's arguments about conflict of interest being a sufficient rationale for the discounting of opinions. Nevertheless, deletion discussions are not votes. Even after adjusting for the COI misunderstanding, the closure of this discussion was within reasonable admin discretion. Note: I will admit that my opinion is influenced by the incredibly poor quality of the article at the time of deletion. Rossami (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn, keep, and cleanup. AFD was not the correct way to handle the situation. — CharlotteWebb 02:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Jeopardy! in popular culture – no decision so relisted at AFD for further discussion – GRBerry 04:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

No consensus for deletion with misinterpretation of WP:COI by closing admin.

Original AfD debate received 4 delete votes and 3 keep votes. Admin's closure of debate can be interpreted as a fifth delete vote. Is 5-3 a consensus decision tally?
In the explanation for his decision, closing admin considered keep votes invalid as they came from users with edits on the article, claiming WP:COI. This is a misinterpretation of WP:COI. The fact that users have contibuted edits to an article does not imply a conflict of interest, as would be the case if the page were a vanity page.
No "delete" voter addressed that the article is part of a family of articles spun off from a main article that is already much too large. One delete voter apparently wrote an essay which predates his delete vote in the AfD by a couple of days and mirrors my thinking as elaborated in my comments in the AfD (but comes to a different conclusion). It is worth noting here that this essay is neither policy nor does it solve the actual problem it purports to, viz., the growth-and-deletion cycle of trivia (as pointed out in the essay's talk page).
More broadly, I believe it is imperative for Wikipedia to discuss and set firmer guidelines regarding what constitutes trivia (or what is often denigratingly referred to as "cruft", among other terms) and what constitutes the sensible aggregation of useful information on a notable topic in an article apart from the topic's main article. Battles of the American Civil War consists of listings of facts not incorporated into the text of an article, but no one would call it cruft.
Finally, I would propose that what some users call "trivia" or "cruft" is actually the very thing that makes Wikipedia interesting and useful, as I touched on in the AfD in question. I would refer the reader to this post, which makes the point better than I could ("this is the kind of thing it really excels at: elaborate, collaborative categorizations of previously uncategorized items"), and note that one of the articles mentioned in the post appears to have already succumbed to an AfD. I should like to see a new culture that rejects and combats the culling trend which appears, from my perspective, to be entirely based on the (non-policy) feelings of a vocal minority of users.

Robert K S 09:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As a side note (you can see that I voted to overturn below), I doubt that the closing admin meant his remarks on "conflict of interest" to be a reference to COI in the Wikipedia sense, as opposed to a standard-parlance observation that editors of an article like to see it stay on the site. The votes shouldn't simply be discounted, but he isn't wrong there. Conversely, I don't really understand the closer's points about a weak reason turning a strong keep vote into a keep vote. Weak reasons are weak reasons. Dekimasu よ! 12:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment no opinion on this as yet, I'd like to here more from the closing admin since the COI comments do see most off. However some comments on the above - the standard AFD is not a vote, being spun off from one article doesn't make any difference (doesn't add any legitimacy to the content) and the the on the broader issue I'm not convinced there is any need, but regardless this isn't the place to try and define them. --pgk 09:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment like pgk says, AfD is not a vote, please don't directly use vote-counting as a way of saying that the article has no consensus. Secondly, Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles seems to be totally ignored when spinning these articles off - article content still has to be attributable, and no amount of usefulness will negate this need. The problem with the Battle of the American Civil War analogy is that is a list of battles with no interpretation - an "in popular culture" article is bound to have tons of analysis on what's popular culture, and if the mention is deemed to be a reference - thus the need for reliable sourcing, but almost always it's a trap for unsourced interpretation or speculation. ColourBurst 15:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was the closing admin. here is an archived link of a discussion I had explaning my decision. I am going to be away from the computer for a while. I still stand by my originial decision. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion in popular culture. Pop culture sections in articles are cruft-o-ramas. Split out into separate articles to remove the cruft, they lack any redeeming features. Trim "in popular culture" sections back to one or two every few weeks, leave it at that. Guy (Help!) 23:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Otto4711 00:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per my arguments on the afd, also, the editor should look at WP:ATA, as he is making some similar arguments (we have this, let's have that) and such as stated there. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to put every trivial fact, and we should not have pages just full of trivia, or in this disguised "in popular culture" moniker. Booshakla 09:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I hadn't seen that before. Robert K S 10:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. In response to the previous comments, please note that DRV is not "AfD part deux"--arguments should generally be limited about the validity of the close. In this case, the close does not seem valid. In addition to a serious misunderstanding by the closing admin as to what WP:COI does and does not entail, I will address two issues: raw numbers and the arguments themselves.
1. Numbers. AfD is not a vote. Majority does not and should not necessarily rule. However, numbers are a part of determining consensus. This discussions was split 5-5 on deleting the article and keeping the content (either as "keep" or "merge").
2. Arguments. The closing admin discounted the "keep" arguments in his explanation, but let's consider the delete arguments. At least two of the arguments for deletion were suspect, consisting of an unexplained reference to "fancruft" and a reference to WP:NOT#IINFO without specification of which of the 8 things listed there it meets.
I am not endorsing the article itself, but the close was inappropriate (and the three comments above all arguments relevant at AfD, but not so much at DRV). -- Black Falcon 17:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE is a statement of principle with 8 specific examples. Those 8 were never intended to be interpreted as a definitive list of all possible kinds of indiscriminate information. Rossami (talk)
Comment - Maybye I am wrong but I viewed a merge as the article should not have an article of its own. I guess I have no issue copying the information somewhere so editors can determine what they want to merge. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you are quite right. A merge requires that the content be transferred into another article and that the original article be made into a redirect. So, technically the original title will still exist as an active link, but it's not an article per se (it's just a redirect page). -- Black Falcon 01:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information is policy. There is a regrettable tendency to think that all facts of this nature are of encyclopedic importance. They aren't. Inappropriate info is added to the main article? Cut it with prejudice, don't create a fork. Interesting and useful? A reputable encyclopedia is more important. Moreover, it is also important that we are not caught up in excess bureaucracy at DRV. Bad articles should stay deleted, particularly when the AfD is within admin discretion. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 22:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and reclose using actual consensus (or lack of) from AFD. It wouldn't be unreasonable to merge (and, obviously, redirect and keep history) as a compromise. --Random832 14:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn; this article did have legitimate content about appearances in other shows and mediums, including parodies and references. I don't find this to be an indiscriminate collection of information; I find it to be an intriguing article. Ral315 » 18:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:INTERESTING. Otto4711 03:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quote from WP:AADD: "Naturally, citing this essay just by one of its many acronyms (e.g. WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT), without further explanation, is similarly ill advised, for the reasons explained above." -- Black Falcon 03:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - (sigh) For those who need it spelled out for being unable to grasp the shortcut..."it is intriguing" is not a compelling argument. Lots of things are intriguing or interesting or fascinating or really, really, neat without being in the slightest bit proper for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Arguing in favor of an article or in a DRV by saying that an article interests or intrigues you is not likely to be seen as persuasive by many of the people reading the debate. This argument is often summarized by linking to WP:INTERESTING so that people can read it and other similarly uncompelling arguments instead of typing the same thing over and over and over again in discussions, despite the fact that some people have difficulty grasping the utility of shortcutting. I further note that simply copying and pasting the "Naturally..." portion of WP:AADD is not a particularly compelling counter-argument either. Otto4711 14:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Naturally, ... and it was not intended to be a counter-argument. It was intended to point out that it is just as unhelpful to suggest the keeping/deletion of an article because one finds them interesting/uninteresting it as it is to merely write WP:INTERESTING or WP:IDONTLIKEIT after others' comments. And I fully well grasp the utility of shortcuts, but am adverse to their overuse without supporting arguments. But, if you insist on a counter-argument, here's one: Your application of WP:INTERESTING to Ral315's comment is inappropriate as s/he writes "I don't find this to be an indiscriminate collection of information", thereby disputing the primary reason for deletion. -- Black Falcon 23:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually she writes that she doesn't find it indiscriminate because she finds it intriguing. Thus, WP:INTERESTING. An interesting indiscriminate collection is still indiscriminate. Otto4711 14:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. While I disagree ideologically with the article's supporters (see my userpage, where trivia is one of the few things I complain about), I recognize the strength of User:Robert K S's argument from the original AfD that the separation was due to the overall length of the Jeopardy! article. I do not see anywhere in the AfD that his concerns were addressed, so on the weight of the arguments, I fail to see this as a consensus to delete. I wouldn't mind my own chance to see the article and sort through the opinions on that basis. "User:Robert K S should also realize that a spun-off article must be able to stand on its own two feet; if it can't, it's an indication that the length of the original article is an artifact, rather than due to the actual breadth of the subject," I might say, if I'd had a good look, and we were rehashing at AfD. But I don't see it as process for process's sake. There's a good chance that the article could be successfully defended from the likes of me. Dekimasu よ! 12:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion -- the consensus is more clear than the "vote count" implies. Two of the comments supported only merging "notable" mentions back to the main article. On further inspection, the notable mentions were already at the main article. The only remaining issue: whether the history should be preserved behind a redirect. No one addressed this but maybe the closer can comment. To me, I think the history we need is already around, since the trivia section was forked off earlier to create this subpage. Mango juice^talk 21:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. I disagree with the closer's arguments about conflict of interest being a sufficient rationale for the discounting of opinions. Nevertheless, deletion discussions are not votes. Even after adjusting for the COI misunderstanding, the closure of this discussion was within reasonable admin discretion. Note: I will admit that my opinion is influenced by the incredibly poor quality of the article at the time of deletion. Rossami (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, keep, and cleanup. AFD was not the correct way to handle the situation. — CharlotteWebb 02:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.