Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 29

Johnson City Cardinals (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I don't even know where to begin with this one...This may be the most out of process speedy deletion that I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Speedy deleting an article of a Minor League Baseball team as A7 is bad enough, but add to it the fact that the admin stands by it and has gone through and deleted all evidence that the page has ever existed. Every other professional baseball team in North America has an article on Wikipedia. It's the Cardinals rookie league team that has been in continuous existence since 1937 - information I got from the cached page, so it was there. It wasn't new or poorly written or in a weird format...it looked like every other minor league baseball team article on WP. Smashville 20:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like a likely mistake. Some may not understand that a rookie league team is a professional team... it is a bit counter-intuitive, eh? — xDanielx ^T/_C 20:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe, but I did bring the same point up that every professional team in North America had one...and was told it was short, unreferenced and made no assertion of notability (I don't know what kind of assertion of notability was to be made...the page listed the league championships and the Cardinals affiliation, which for this sort of organization should be the only assertion that needs to be made...listing Major League alumni in all Minor League articles would be good, but that's a WP in and of itself). Smashville 20:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Restore possibly speedily. Being a professional sports team (even if not major league) is certainly an assertion of notability and thus it was an invalid A7. Indeed I would be very surprised if this was deleted after an AfD and so do not recommend listing at all. Eluchil404 21:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Restore - As a minor league farm club of a major league team, it should have at least gone through the AFD process, or had notability tags added first. Also, was it instantly deleted without even allowing time for a hold to be added? That info is not accessable to non-admins, so I don't know. The whole deletion seems to be a lack of good faith, esp by an admin, who ought to know better. - BillCJ 21:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Restore Articles on minor league teams clearly make an assertion of notability, but the level of notability can be debated. The article should be restored, and if necessary, sent to AfD. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Restore. The particular circumstances of this case suggest that the article deserves more discussion or a chance to be improved. That said, I think that the original A7 deletion was valid. The article stated that the team is "affiliated with the St. Louis Cardinals", but didn't state what the affiliation is. Also, although it did state that the team is a "rookie league team", the phrase is counterintuitive, as it brings to mind an image of a neighbourhood baseball team for local children. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Those issues could have been easily fixed by anyone with a passing knowledge of US major and minor league baseball. A notability tag would have given a knowledgable editor the cahnce to fix it, which by the way, is what I understand notability tags are actually for. If an admin doens't know anything about baseball (not a bad thing in any way), I would think he'd at least ask for an opinion on the Baseball project talk page. But simply jumping in with an apparently-instant deletion is not really a well-thought out decision, and while it may genuinely be good faith, it is reckless. I am OK with taking it to AFD, while giving the article a chance to be improved. - BillCJ 23:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    • You're right, of course, and I was commenting from my perspective, as someone whose knowledge of baseball is essentially limited to the understanding that it involves diamonds, bats, and balls of sufficient weight and rigidity to cause bodily damage traveling at high speeds. (OK, so I may be exaggerating slightly.) :P ... I feel that the article should be restored and was only trying to suggest that the deleting admin should not be accused of having carried out "the most out of process speedy deletion ... ever seen on Wikipedia" (quoted from the nomination). The deletion probably was somewhat hasty, but the article didn't really give much reason for pause (at least to those editors unfamiliar with baseball). As for your final point, I do not think that an automatic AfD listing is necessary. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, gotcha. Also, I wasn't proposing or suggesting an automatic AFD nom, just that I was OK with it happening. I'd rather just see the article restored, as I believe its issues can and will be fixed. - BillCJ 00:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Restore and do not submit to a further AfD. Minor league baseball teams are notable. The issue with the phrase "rookie league" could be addressed by writing it like this: rookie league. By the way, Black Falcon, that same page explains what is meant by "affiliation" in this context. --BlueMoonlet 23:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - "A rookie league team based out of Johnson City, Tennessee" conveys no importance/significance and the bit about the General Manager was written in a way to give the General Manager importance/significance, not the team. The team plays its home games at Howard Johnson Field ... yawn (excuse me) ... conveys no importance/significance. The criminal conviction of their General Manager was not specifically sourced. On the other hand, they've been around since 1937 and play with the Appalachian League, which seems to provide enough importance/significance. I can see where the deleting admin was coming from and don't see any need for such DRV nomination drama. -- Jreferee t/c 00:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • How is there DRV nomination drama? Minor League Baseball teams (specifically those within the official Minor League Baseball organization) should be automatically notable. The admin wouldn't restore so I took to DRV, which is the exact reason DRV exists. Smashville 00:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Restore only if the BLP violation is removed seems close to a WP:COATRACK to get at someone; while notability is probably asserted (barely, given the weasel words - they play with so & so; well I study with Green Day, suddenly, I'm notable too?) the BLP issue needs to be resolved or removed; because it appears in all versions from the start, it may be best to have this re-created from scratch. Carlossuarez46 03:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I can live with the BLP restrictions and a clean page history. Having access to the rest of the article's content would be a great help though (copied onto a clean page would seem the best way, but I'm open to any other method). I can do some clean-up and editing, but again, I've never even seen the page, and I'm better at editing, not writing from scratch. - BillCJ 03:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Palma.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was a public photograph obtained from the United States Air Force under the Freedom of Information Act [1]. It was listed on the page as such but was deleted by a bot as having no source information. It is since been copied over by a completely unrelated picture. The source was the service record of the veteran and the image is PD per the release law of FOIA. Independent verification of this can be gained by calling 314-801-0800 as military service record photographs are public and can be published without restriction. I will be the first to admit I have had problems with images in the past, but this is not one of them. This was legally obtained and is public and I ask it be undeleted. OberRanks 13:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ober, you can just upload it under a more expressive name once your injunction on uploading images ends on Nov 16th. It is definitely public domain, per http://www.archives.gov/faqs/index.html#copyright. Alternately, give me the original link and I'll upload it for you. Neil ☎ 14:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Specific source never stated, just a generic claim that it is a US gov't image. Husnock wasn't reliable on his claims. Best solution is to find it again and upload with a specific US gov't source for the specific image. GRBerry 19:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Deletion was proper, but reuploading with a source is fine. Please, not with that name though; don't cover up a Commons image. Chick Bowen 19:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, should be re-uploaded with proper source and ideally under a different name. ~ trialsanderrors 06:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse upload again with source, then no cause or just call for deletion John B Sheffield 17:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)JBS

Ottawa Panhandlers Union (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was falsely deleted because one admin said we didn't have enough references. I had about 12 good references in local Ottawa press about this article. This article has also previously been attacked from Ottawa City Hall and any deletion process should not have been hasty because of this. When asked how many references were needed Nishkid64 never specified. He just told us that none of our references were good ones. It was a kangaroo court as User:SmashtheState has said. There were no clear guidelines on how to improve the content of the article or keep it. All that was said was that our references didn't make the article notable even though we had DOZENS. I believe this was a bad faith delete. Yes. The vote is not a majority but dozens of people who do have experience in activism, specifically poverty activism and organized labour have voted to keep this article. User:Nishkid64 on the other hand has no experience in this matter. Which makes it even more obvious that this was a bad faith delete. A google search of Ottawa Panhandlers Union shows that there are many articles on this topic. Those are just a drop in the bucket as there have been many television and radio interviews. Apples99 (talk • contribs • logs) 09:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Also "Blnguyen" is none other than Dr. Chi Nguyen, a criminologist in Ottawa who has repeatedly underplayed police vs street people crimes in publications like this one http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/rs/rep/2002/patternsofcrime.html.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.7.108.240 (talk • contribs)

Blocked the user for trolling. FYI, Blnguyen is a college student in Australia. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn - Having read the discussion on deletion I am surprised that the final decision was to delete the article. It would appear that there were enough references online to support the article, and particularly given it's very unique nature (in how many countries have 'panhandlers' formed a union?) it would appear worthy of inclusion in wikipedia. Although many references to WP:N were made against the inclusion, it was also pointed out that WP:IDONTKNOWIT isn't a valid argument - and states that just because something is only quoted in local publications it doesn't mean that it isn't notable. Whilst the article itself was probably somewhat POV, this should be dealt with in the usual (and more appropriate) manner of correcting the article, not simply removing it entirely. It's uniqueness, coupled with the sources that were provided should have provided enough to give it a 'keep' result. Seajay 12:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - With respect to Seajay, I'm not at all surprised that the final decision was delete. Sure, there were lots of keep !votes, but they seemed to be primarily sockpuppets. The arguments for notability were based on publication in local papers, but the arguments against pointed out that such publication was actually scarce -- the 12 citations turned out to be almost entirely non-substantive (e.g. blogs, etc.) Through all the sockpuppetry, accusations, and other...junk...no one stepped forward with the supposed hundreds of other citations that the keep supporters claim exist. Notability having not been established, deletion was appropriate. (That the "owners" of the article keep personally attacking established, respected editors and accusing them of bad faith doesn't weigh into the merits of the article -- but it's counter-productive and should stop.) --TheOtherBob 16:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Having slogged through that disaster of an AFD, it would appear that the close is appropriate; established editors stated that the sources present in the article were not of the quality that would satisfy verifiability and prove the notability of the organization (which, with the 34 members that one debater pointed out, would seem to be pretty small in the grand scheme of things). It's incumbent on the creators of an article to ensure that it meets the guidelines, and there seems to have been sufficient time for improvements to be made - the deletion suggests they weren't made prior to the deletion debate ending. Endorse deletion Tony Fox (arf!) 16:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn As a frequent user but relative newbie to the behind the scenes editing of articles, I was stunned to see how this process was handled. I've seen countless articles in Wikipedia "that need better sourcing". Clearly this article could have used more thorough sourcing, but I was appalled to see the credibility of editors given more weight than real-life Ottawa residents who clearly know way more about the issue and the local media scene. Three sources were completely and utterly misconstrued and it would be sad to think that the editors gave credence to those who know more about editing than about the actual facts of the situation. The op-ed piece written by a panhandler was in response to "news" article so skewed (and given national coverage) that the editors of the local paper of record (The Ottawa Citizen) was forced to allow a rebuttal. It would have been ideal to cite the original Citizen article but it appears those who had a political motive for discrediting the union were not interested in an impartial review and/or attempt to improve the article. The second critique of sources was in regards to the Hour. A claim that this is a tiny publication and very alternative is laughable to anyone living in the Ottawa area. It is one of several mainstream free dailies. The Express is a mainstream free weekly. Hardly tiny and hardly very alternative, unless you consider arts and culture extremely alternative. The two big talk radio stations have featured the OPU: CBC (the national public broadcaster) and CFRA (the corporate right-wing shoutfest). Had this article not been so speedily deleted, I might have succeed in digging up an archived radio interview from the CBC. Yeah, that's right, a politically motivated speedy deletion may have cost wikipedia a future editor. And we still counted all the other smaller local press coverage this union has garnered. So, in the final analysis, if this hasty decision isn't overturned you've lost a potential new recruit, tarnished the reputation of wikipedia and flushed down the memory hole an article that could have been improved (like so many other wikipedia articles) with more thorough referencing. 64.230.16.35Ottawa Resident —Preceding comment was added at 17:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC) — 64.230.16.35 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Speedy deletion? It was up for five days as called for under the AFD process. If you have links to this coverage you're referring to, provide them for consideration. As for "politically motivated," you might want to prove that too, because I saw no "political" issues in the discussion. Assume good faith is a tenet here; a lot of the arguments for keeping failed to do that. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Samir and I were targetted for having political motivations because we wanted the article to be deleted. We were repeatedly accused of having ties with Ottawa City Hall, and being police officers. One editor (who I blocked for self-admitted meatpuppetry) kept claiming that Samir was "Samir Bhatnagar", a police officer who had arrested him in real life. This editor then said he had Wikiscanner evidence which proved that relationship. Wikiscanner only examines anonymous edits, and links them with their respective institutions. Someone from Ottawa City Hall did vandalize the page, but it makes no sense that this editor connected the vandal with Samir, who lives hundreds of miles from Ottawa. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse - Consensus was that the topic did not and would not meet WP:V and the closer interpreted the debate correctly. The bad faith accusations in the above DRV nomination seems to confirm that the article would not have met WP:V had it been kept since those who have an interest in the article seem to lack the experience to bring the article into meeting Wikipedia article standards. Comment The article name should have been Panhandlers Union of Ottawa, since that is what the press calls it. There might be enough relaible source material to create a WP:V article, but present efforts were clear that would not happen in the foreseeable future. Please consider creating a draft Panhandling in Ottawa article in your user space to present to WP:DRV, which may include information on the Panhandlers Union of Ottawa. As for sourse material, try limiting the content of the article to material contained in (1) Globe and Mail. (June 17, 1999) City withdraws panhandler charge Defendant laments missed opportunity to contest. Page A6; (2) Canadian Press. (May 1, 2003) Three years after federal push to ease homelessness, progress tough to see.; (3) Edgar, Patti. (June 10, 2005) Winnipeg Free Press Begging bylaw battle looming. Law firm, anti-poverty group await new city plan. Section: City; Page B1. Use search; (4) Industrial Worker. (May 1, 2006) Brooklyn warehouse workers winning with direct action. Volume 103; Issue 5; Page 3. (5) Industrial Worker. (June 1, 2007) Ottawa May Day scrambles lobbyists. Volume 104; Issue 6; page 9. (6) Generally see Aainfos.ca search; (7) Generally see Google book search; and (8) See generally Google scholar search. Publications by court judges are fine, but don't use filed complaints and responses for factual assertions. The Dominion Paper has some information, and it seems like a legit source. However, I didn't seen a editor listed and its reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight are not clear. -- Jreferee t/c 18:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse well reasoned close of a non notable group. The AfD revealed only one op-ed piece in a national newspaper, written by a member of the union, and several pieces in local newspaper of limited circulation. Sources for media reports elsewhere were not provided, beyond the statement that they may have not been archived. To "Ottawa Resident" above: The hour is a small publication, The express is a free weekly of limited circulation, CBO Ottawa does not equate to the national CBC and Lowell Green talking to Andrew Nellis does not equate to a CFRA piece on a panhandlers union. The Dominion is not mainstream and I have no idea of the quality of citations from there. The article was written as a soapbox and the carnival nature of the entire AfD (with wild conspiracy theories left, right and centre) cements the mudified nature of the keep arguments which were trying to make mountains out of very limited sources. Good close by Blnguyen -- Samir 19:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn There was no clear consensus, regardless of what people may feel of the justification. Deletion is supposed to be based on consensus decision; the administration have chosen to find consensus by ignoring every contradicting opinion. And just a note that Samir here is the original source of the deletion request, and that he has revealed an obvious and personal grudge against the Panhandlers' Union. In particular, he is deliberately spinning material presented. For example, the CFRA interview references was not "chatting with Lowell Green," it was an hour-long, in-depth debate between representatives of the Panhandlers' Union and representatives from the local business lobby. We have good reason to suspect, based on his comments, that Samir is part of a current and ongoing campaign of harassment against the OPU and its organizers. The fact that Samir here is even aware of the Lowell Green discussion reveals his intimate knowledge of the OPU, something a casual editor would not have. SmashTheState 20:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• From WP:DGFA, Such "bad faith" opinions include those being made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article. Blnguyen disregarded the votes of single-purpose accounts and the IPs who were told to vote keep on the page. Also from DGFA, Wikipedia policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. Blnguyen clearly felt these policies were not being met, and as a result, he closed the AfD as delete. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Andrew is right. It is obvious that "Samir" is Sgt Samir Bhatnagar of the Ottawa police and he arrested Proshanto at the May Day protest last year. He has been targeting Ottawa street people for years and years on the streets of Ottawa and even here on the Wikipedia. You can tell from this change that he made that he has a profound knowlege of Ottawa even in March of 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ottawa_ankle_rules&diff=43402072&oldid=41852766. The wikiscanner confirms it. Bhatnagar has used the Wikipedia for years to subjugate the views against Ottawa panhandlers. Nishkid64 blocked me also just because Andrew and I put multiple votes down. That is not fair. I have had to go to the library on Laurier to use the computers now. Also how else would he know about the Lowell Green show? Also the picture on his page is from the police service box at the Corel Centre. It is bullshit that he is a "gastroenterologist" and Nishkid64 is taking us for fools when the evidence is obvious that he is a crooked cop and a puppet of Mayor O'Brien.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.7.108.240 (talk • contribs)

I blocked you for meatpuppetry. That is a blockable offense. We have rules here on Wikipedia. And yes, Samir is a gastroenterelogist. Look at his contributions. How would a police officer be able to make medicine-related edits? Nishkid64 (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn I will acknowledge that the article is POV and needs a rewrite. That said, I do think it is notable. The Panhandlers Union has made a big splash in Ottawa. So what we have here is a flawed article that's being deleted -- when it should be kept and repaired. While I do not want to summon up insane conspiracy theories, there is no denying that the article was vandalized TWICE by an IP address that traces back to Ottawa City Hall. This was reported in the media -- CBC, specifically -- and makes the deletion of the article at this time seem... well... weird. You know when people at City Hall take the time to vandalize your article, something strange is going on. Anyway, restore the article, and I'll try to rewrite it to take out the heavy POV political bias contained in it. --Nik 23:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Grand total of 84 edits form this chap and he was canvassed as well. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse - per others above. Also, the article was a wreck and made no sense whatsoever. Forget the Ottawa Panhandlers club.. who has even heard of a panhandlers club anywhere?! No good faith attempt was made to establish notability in spite of being asked and the refs were less than acceptable. Article sure belongs deleted. Sarvagnya 23:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Per WP:ORG, notability needs to be more than local, and no reliable sources seems to have been presented indicating that this organization is known outside Ottawa. I also note that Nishkid64 did reply to Smash's question about sources (contra Apple99's assertion in the nom). It's not about quantity of sources, but quality. Many of the "keep" !votes were directly criticizing the policy of verifiability, asserting that we should trust instead the direct knowledge of people who live in Ottawa. --BlueMoonlet 00:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per BlueMoonlet. - KNM ^Talk 00:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse I stand by all my reasoning from the AfD. I think BlueMoonlet put it best; the notability of the union has to be seen beyond a local level. The only reliable sources (there were maybe 1-2) were from community newspapers. I likened the newspaper coverage in Ottawa to something of a similar nature in my town. I said that if there was a union that was heavily publicized in my local newspaper, or even my county newspaper, I still wouldn't think it was notable enough for Wikipedia. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There's a list of of Ottawa Roads and Ottawa Parks on Wikipedia which are primarily notable for their "localness". Surely, the OPU is of at least similar notability? Or has my mentioning of them doomed their entries to deletion? For those who are genuinely interested in following wikipedia guidlines on notability, the complainants should have had a "notability" tag on the article to alert other editors or a "expert-subject" tag, so interested editors could have corrected their concerns by citing articles like the following: http://www.canada.com/theprovince/story.html?id=5616fec4-3ed8-461a-ac2e-290d876229b2&k=30424 with a little bit of genuine research I'm sure the criteria of notability could be satisfied, if editors were genuinely interested in showing good faith towards the claims of numerous Ottawa residents who have claimed the OPU is a phenomena in Ottawa. Show some good faith and undelete this article, as I'm sure more "reliable" sources will follow. And please don't dare claim that the CanWest News Service is a tiny, very alternative, and biased news source because it paints the OPU in a negative light. 70.49.134.161 02:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Ottawa Resident

Yes look at the CanWest News report!!! I can give you a quote that they talk about the Panhandlers Union, "But, for the past three months, a cloud has hovered over his corner in the form of two men claiming they represent the Ottawa Panhandlers Union. Repeated demands he pay union dues of $100 a week to the men who said they were organizing a strike were too much...He plans to move his business elsewhere because he said the men threatened to beat him and the police told him there is little they can do to protect him from harassment." This is notable news and it is all over Ottawa!!! Andrew and I were the two men collecting the $100 from that scab. Pro Smith 207.7.108.240 02:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse per WP:DELETE: NN, no refs & per DNFT; any semblence of credibility of the conspiracy posse is gone. Carlossuarez46 03:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sudan Tribune (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

While I heartily support anyone with the requisite experiance closing XfDs regardless of their admin-or-lack-therof status, John254 (talk · contribs) made an error in my opinion in this one. Of course, I was the proponent for deletion so I might be biased, however:

• Several clear policy reasons were given for it's deletion,
• The keep arguments not only explicitly invoked WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, they
• Failed utterly to provide sources supporting the article, and finally
• No commentary was provided in the close as to why core policies should be ignored.

I won't repeat the quotes from policy I made in the AfD, go look at them there if you'd like. Short version: While countering systemic bias is a wonderful thing, it is entirely possible for something to be a reliable news source without us being able to verify it is reliable. No sources about something (as opposed to referencing that thing) means no article.
CygnetSaIad 05:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse - csd request was correctly overturned, as the article asserted the notability of the topic. The AfD reason was just "contested csd". When you later expanded on your reasoning, your interpretation of policy was challenged and discussed. I know AfD isn't a vote, but you need to realise you are the only one who thought the article should be deleted. Others made valid arguments, and the closing admin clearly did the right thing. Mark Chovain 05:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

With respect, the arguments raised were:

1. "this site is invaluable"
2. "It passes WP:WEB by being syndicated by Google News"
3. "should actually be a speedy keep"
4. "I read the Sudan Tribune often"

It may very well be the case that the site is invaluable, and that it does important work in the region. But in the absence of sources that speak to its reliability, etc, we can't write an article about it. These aren't "my" interpretations of policy, they are chapter and verse, mate. Noting that the article still has not source one in it, those provided in the AfD are as follows:

1. [2] A Google search
2. [3] A listing on Barack Obama's website, and
3. [4] A reference made within a House Committee on Foreign Affairs' document

None of these provide any information that would allow us to write a neutral verifiable article on the topic.

CygnetSaIad 06:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - not one argument to delete other than that of the nominator. this is one of the few AFDs John254 has closed that he should have been closing. Endorse. Neil ☎ 15:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Sometimes you just have to use common sense. It's one of two total news sources for an entire country. Smashville 15:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)