Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:13, 1 July 2008

1 July 2008

Myungbaksanseong

Myungbaksanseong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Admin Gwen Gale (talk · contribs) deleted the article of Myeongbaksanseong (명박산성) as referring the discussion result to as "delete" and Misplaced Pages:Coatrack, but I contest to the decision because the discussion is clearly in no consensus and not tilt toward urges for "deletion". The essay is not also Wikipolicy, so the admin just weights her thought to delete the page without plausible rationale. That's why I'm writing for overtune. The article holds not only a recent neologism pertaining structures, but also a current movement of South Korea political issue regarding US beef imports in South Korea. The name itself has been featured in notable South Korean media such as in MBC 9 news program on June 30 as a closing ment.video clip 1. In addtion, even KBS made a special programme regarding this.video clip 2. There are so many reliable articles on this as well. Caspian blue (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse - as a valid close. Although the summary could have been more clear and specific, this was clearly a "delete", based on the arguments presented and their basis in policy. The nom seems to think this should be a "no consensus" close based on !vote count, but in reality we make the judgement based on merit, not numbers. Doc Tropics 17:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, the AfD was closed properly. I also took a look at the cached version and came to the same conclusion as the delete !voters. I wouldn't say that the term itself is notable enough for inclusion, based on the relevant criteria. However, the AfD and the sources provided on the cached version have convinced me that a mention of it should probably go in US beef imports in South Korea or whichever other article covers the bulk of this controversy. I'd support a merge there or a transwiki to Wiktionary if you'd like, as well. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment If you looked at the cached version via googling, then you viewed the unorgnazied one (clumsy and much poorer version than the latest one before the deletion). --Caspian blue (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't have another option. I can't view Special:Undelete and Deletionpedia doesn't have an entry. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now I can view Special:Undelete and the cached version looks pretty identical to the most recent deleted one. I'm afraid that I stand by my !vote on this one. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulation for your passing RFA, but the version is not identical. I kindly ask you to paste the info to my talk page fo me and other editors who put their effort in developing the article. Regardless of the deletion review, I need to put it to US beef imports in South Korea. Thanks--Caspian blue (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see a consensus here develop for it first. You should make a non-threaded comment that you'd like to merge the content, though, just to be sure everyone sees it. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Review

Misplaced Pages Review (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

(Note Misplaced Pages Review is currently a redirect to Criticism of Misplaced Pages.) This article has been deleted at AFD on two occasions - see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Review and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Review (2nd nomination). However, since these AFDs, a lot of time has passed. There are more reliable sources out there now. Given Encyclopedia Dramatica and Wikitruth, two other prominent anti-Misplaced Pages sites, have articles, I would say that the only thing stopping a Misplaced Pages Review article is whether suitable references that assert notability can now be found. I have found several, and have created a draft article at User:Neil/wr. This draft is referenced, neutrally written, all sources are reliable, and it asserts more than enough notability to meet WP:WEB. I am looking for an okay to move this into article space, after getting an initial thumbs up at WP:AN. I would appreciate keeping the drama to a minimum. Thanks. Neıl 龱 15:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oh yeah - move to article space. Neıl 龱 15:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Which part of WP:WEB are you saying it now meets? I ask because I can't see that it meets any one of the three criteria. RMHED (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

  Criterion 1, I think. Sceptre 15:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, "the content has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". The articles in The Independent, InformationWeek, and The Guardian are particularly non-trivial. The citations in academic works are also considered an aide to notability, I believe. Neıl 龱 16:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

  The Independent and Informatonweek mentions of Misplaced Pages Review are just in passing and are definitely trivial. The Guardian article wouldn't load for me, so can't comment on that. As for the Palo Alto Research Centre pdf, that just contained a very brief quote from Misplaced Pages Review on some new search facility, so again wholly trivial. RMHED (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

  The PARC stuff is one of the "citation in academic works" I mentioned. Such a citation is never trivial. The Guardian reference () is entirely about WR and its relationship with Misplaced Pages, it's unfortunate you can't get it to work. Try this link, it's the printable version. I am surprised you consider the Independent (entirety of paras 3 and 4) mention to be "trivial". Neıl 龱 16:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

  Ok now got The Guardian' piece to load and yes that is non-trivial, even with that though, I'd still say it's at best borderline notable. RMHED (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn - sufficiently notable now. Sceptre 15:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• I move that we accept this in article space. It's well written and sourced, and reasonably balanced. --Jenny 16:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Seems a little self referential... are all the things mentioned of general interest to the average general reader? (but of course, that question applies to most of our articles on esoteric topics). The article does seems balanced, well written, and well referenced. Overturn and move to articlespace. ++Lar: t/c 16:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

  Not an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, as Lar has already indicated "overturn", more of an example - we have articles that aren't even of interest to the interested fan, let alone the average reader. Neıl 龱 16:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Not sure whether it's sufficiently notable (though the "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" factor would argue for it if this wasn't an invalid argument), but if it's decided that it isn't, at least it should get a brief mention in the Criticism of Misplaced Pages article, which the WR article currently redirects even though it doesn't mention the site (or at least it didn't the last time I looked, which is a while ago by now). This lack of mention is fallout from last year's BADSITES silliness. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn - it's safe to say that Neil has significantly improved and expanded this article enough that it meets our WP:WEB notability standards while remaining decently WP:NPOV. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• I move that we accept this in article space. It's well written and sourced, and reasonably balanced. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn The article seems plenty good enough and the topic plenty notable enough for inclusion. Captain panda 19:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Create Article in Article space - this is an appropriate article for the encyclopedia. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn Create in article space. I believe there is a redirect to delete here. Well done Neil! Miss Ann Thropie (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: Since this appears to be WP:SNOW to overturn, can we please restore the entire history of the article and talkpage as well. No need to keep it a secret. --Dragon695 (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn glad we've finally gotten some sense.128.112.203.68 (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted/Do not move Neil's version to article space Whilst hesitating to fly in the face of the unanimity above, I nonetheless believe that the assertion that Misplaced Pages Review is sufficiently notable is incorrect. I clicked on read all the links to sources in Neil's article yet could not find one that was substantially about Misplaced Pages Review, in fact almost all of them seemed to mention it only in passing. WP:WEB is actually not entirely clear on the point but the general notability guidelines are:

  "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail

  Misplaced Pages Review has received no such coverage in the sources provided. Certainly there is no critical analysis of Misplaced Pages Review to be seen. A passing mention in an article or paper concerning Misplaced Pages is not substantial coverage. If this were an AfD on a business or biographical article such marginal coverage would not be sufficient for retention. CIreland (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Borderline, but has achieved a level of coverage. I'd prefer to see it covered in the Misplaced Pages article, where it should be set in the context of its very minor relevance. Let's put it into mainspace for now. --Jenny 21:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn obviouslt COI here - but I wouldnt be voting to overturn unless I was happy that there was a sufficient level of coverage for our content guidelines - in this case, WP:WEB Viridae 21:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• As a member of this site I suppose my opinion is not very relevant, but for what it's worth I think it's veryyy borderline and is just on the edge of being significant enough to be included. A few mentions does not notability make, but the Guardian article is just pushing it. I don't think an overturn would be inappropriate here. Naerii 22:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - site for banned users and their surrogates to harass users in good standing. Not to mention it's navel gazing and a non-notable website. Raul654 (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • OK cool. Now got a reason that isn't also navel gazing? (ie on the content of the article itself?) Viridae 22:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Since you have trouble comprehending perfectly good written english, perhaps I should write it out with a few more spaces this time so you can read it a bit better: i t i s n a v e l g a z i n g a n d n o n - n o t a b l e. Raul654 (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Three images used in Roller Coaster (video game)

File:RollerCoasterTitle.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache)

File:Rollercoasterscreen.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache)

File:DragonsLairTheLegendScreen.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache)

The fact that the above three images have been deleted from the Roller Coaster (video game) article is causing problems with said article; see its recent edit history.

I don't know if the fact that these deletions were done by BetaCommandBot, which has since been indefinitely blocked, has anything to do with anything. -- Korax1214 (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it has nothing to do with anything. They were tagged by BCB for lacking appropriate non-free content rationales, they were deleted by various admins. If they were all used in the same article, that likely violates WP:NFCC criteria 3a - so judgment should be reached about which one is appropriate and can meet all of the criteria. GRBerry 16:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: BetaCommandBot never deleted anything, deletions are done by admins. Corvus cornix_talk 16:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I have undeleted the main image and reinserted it in the article. Please fix the rationale or it will be deleted again. The other images fail WP:NFCC#3a and should not be undeleted. Rettetast (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Long Beach Boulevard (closed)

Cheshire Cat in popular culture

Cheshire Cat in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD,2)

Black Kite closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cheshire Cat in popular culture (2nd nomination) as a "delete"; however, regardless of whether any of us believe the article in question should or should not have been kept, the discussion itself did not have a clear consensus. Those arguing to keep and those arguing to delete went back and forth without convincing each other one way or the other. TEN editors in good standing argued to keep in this second AfD for an article that when previously AfDed closed as "no consensus". Three others argued to merge. As the discussion progressed editors actively worked to improve the article in question and thus some of those who initially argued to delete did not state whether or not the improvements were enough to change their stances. While AfDs may not be votes, such support for a keep or merge suggests insufficient reason or consensus for deleting. Moreover, given the back and forth nature of the discussion itself, I simply cannot see any other read of the discussion than "no consensus". I would certainly not say it resulted in "keep," even though I argued to "keep," but neither did it decisively result in an uncontroversial "delete". Please note as well that I am NOT the only one to have contested this AfD. Please see User_talk:Black_Kite/Archive16. Two editors asked the deleting admin about the close and yet neither one of us received a response. Please note that I waited three days for a response before starting the discussion and because a second editor had also questioned the close, I am taking that as justification for initiating this thread. You will notice that the close occurred alongside a close for another article that was contested and undone. As a side question of etiquette, the deleting admin has since deleted his userpage and regular talk page and so I am not sure if I should still put a DRV notice or if I should respect that the talk page was deleted? In any event, whether or not anyone us want the article kept or deleted, we should be able to acknowledge that the discussion itself did not result in either side convincing the other and had strong arguments and determined proponents on both sides so that the discussion did not decisively result in a clear consensus one way or the other. I am not sure that relisting would necessarily change that and therefore respectfully request that the close be overturned and instead closed as "no consensus." Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 01:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Restore as no consensus--which probably represents the state of things for the view on Misplaced Pages for most articles of this sort. When I applied for adminship, I was asked whether I would close afds according to my own view of the issue. I replied that of course I would not--that if I had a position on the matter I would argue, not close, and close only things where I was personally indifferent except where there was a really obvious consensus one way or another. and that's what I've done. i was confirmed almost without opposition, and if I had said otherwise, i would not have deserved to be confirmed at all. I recommend this attitude to other admins--in fact, I think it's the attitude required for all admins., The closer has made it abundantly clear at various discussions that he does not approve of IPC and fiction articles unless they meet very high requirements. A perfect defensible view, though I do not agree with it--but in that case it should have been argued, and someone else left to close. What would people have thought of me if I had closed this afd the way I wanted it to come out? DGG (talk) 02:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• If we count numbers, 9 supported keeping the article, and 18 (15 supporting deletion, 3 supporting merging) supported removal of the content as its own article (one supported keeping or merging). Removal of the content has the majority support here. If we then look at the number of people who, after LGRDSC's continued debate and arguments, remained in support of removal of the content, we see that the majority of people do not agree in this instance with LGRDC and others' interpretation of relevant policies and guidelines. Policies/Guidelines regarding fiction are much debated (as everyone in this conversation as of now knows very well); therefore, we cannot appeal to the "backed by policy" aspect of our purported consensus policy. Numbers will play a larger factor. When I consider that the majority (numbers) of the participants in this discussion clearly evaluated their interpretations of the P&Gs (by the never-ending discussions with LGRDC about them) as well as the interpretations of those who disagree, and maintained (policy) their support for deletion, I believe that this discussion has a consensus for deletion. As for the closer, (who has left the project for a while, and so will probably not be commenting here), his has merely made his opinions on articles such as these more public than some. Perhaps he should not have closed a debate about an article type of which he has made his opinion public. But administrators are selected because the community deems them able to use the tools in a judicious and neutral manner. If there are concerns that Black Kite does not use his position judiciously and neutrally, as the community has deemed him able to do, then they need to be addressed discussing his ability to be an administrator at all, not used as a tool to discredit a particular AfD closure. And, for the record, I have no such concerns. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Three supporting merging is still supporting some part of the content somewhere, and thus does not support outright deletion, which precludes merger under the GFDL. Even so, a supermajority is still not consensus, and ignoring arguments simply because they are in a minority, especially when that minority is made up of a significant number of established Wikipedians making reasoned arguments based on policy, is not a proper way to close an AfD. Finally, one cannot normally show that an administrator is acting improperly without showing a pattern of individual instances, and each of these instances need to first be judged in the normal way (i.e. AfDs judged through DRV). And since the administrator has already had himself desysopped, that point is moot anyway. DHowell (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • You are correct in stating that a supermajority is not consensus. This is because our consensus policy stipulates that comments must also be taken with respect to policy. Policy is not clear on this issue – else we would not be having this discussion. Numbers do play a significant role in consensus, especially when there is no clear-cut policy. I am not suggesting we "ignore" the arguments of a significant minority; however, there can still be a significant amount of dissension and have consensus (for instance, in RfAs with <75% support). If policy and guidelines are either not clear, or have differing interpretations (for which WP:N is notorious) numbers play a role. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't think an RfA is really analogus to an AfD. One (RfA) is for promoting someone; the other (AfD) is for a last resort. Something as decisive as an AfD when at worst a legitimate redirect location (Cheshire Cat) exists and when a good deal of editors had worked on the article and when admins and established editors argue to keep should not end as anything but "no consensus." Deletion is saying that there is absolutely no reasonable chance the article in question can or will be improved. The article was not a copy vio, was not completely unreferenced, was not libelous, etc. and thus there was no pressing immediate concern to delete the article altogether righ then and there. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 06:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • If we go by numbers in support of the article, then we need to include not just those who argued to delete in the AfD, but also the more numerous number of editors who created and worked on the article in question in good faith for over a year as also obviously believing the article sufficiently met our disputed policies and guidelines to be kept. Plus, it does not help when some of those who posted multiple times to delete in the discussion have stated that it is their mission to delete and that they will would not argue to keep in any AFDs and so if such accounts keep arguing to delete after improvements we cannot really take that as meaning the improvements were somehow insufficient. Thus, there was/is no reasonable way to see a consensus for deletion in that discussion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 05:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore as no consensus. The closer's stated rationale merely echoed the nominator's assertions, and seemed to reflect personal opinion, rather than showing any evidence that the decision was based on the rather lengthy discussion and policy. Merely stating something is "blatant original research" does not make it so, especially against clear and reasoned arguments to the contrary. The improvements made to the article and many reliable sources were simply ignored, rather than addressed in the closing. Ongoing arguments by established editors based on policy were being made on both sides, clearly showing no consensus. At the time of closing, the closer's own userpage also expressed concerns about Misplaced Pages becoming "a compendium of every piece of trivia ever written", which seems to reflect a personal view favoring one side of the debate. As DGG says, administrators should not close AfDs according to their own views, but should base closings on the actual discussion. And even the closer admitted there was some (even if "(very) little") encyclopedic content in this article, which should have at least resulted in a merge and redirect rather than deletion. DHowell (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore, there was no consensus here. Everyking (talk) 05:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse DRV is not AFD2 and there is no substantial policy based reason why this deletion should not stand. Spartaz 07:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • No one is approaching this discussion as "AfD2", but because the close did not follow deletion policy, i.e. the discussion totally lacked consensus and thus per deletion instructions it should have been closed as "no consensus". The additional concern here is that two editors (not just myself) requested clarification from the deleting admin who did not respond to either after a few days, who had improperly closed a different AfD at practically the same time that was also challenged, and who has since resigned his adminship. Plus, the close itself even says "information that could possibly be encyclopedic can be included in the main article," which is really a call for a merge and redirect without deletion as such material cannot be added as he suggests if the article is deleted and if it is added as the close suggests then per the GFDL, we need to keep the contribution history public. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 07:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• While I disagree with the existence of any "in popular culture" articles and, with no ill-will or disrespect intended, LGRdC seems to be showing up very regularly here at DRV, I will have to say overturn and restore, no consensus was the correct result. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that it's been awhile since we've had such a passionate inclusionist emerge, but I personally welcome it. There are far too many deletionists not to have someone of LGRdC's nature around. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse DRV is not AFD2 and deletion was based upon clear failings of the article to meet core content policies. --Allen3  12:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • No one is approaching this discussion as "AfD2", but because the close did not follow deletion policy, i.e. the discussion totally lacked consensus and thus per deletion instructions it should have been closed as "no consensus". The additional concern here is that two editors (not just myself) requested clarification from the deleting admin who did not respond to either after a few days, who had improperly closed a different AfD at practically the same time that was also challenged, and who has since resigned his adminship. Plus, the close itself even says "information that could possibly be encyclopedic can be included in the main article," which is really a call for a merge and redirect without deletion as such material cannot be added as he suggests if the article is deleted and if it is added as the close suggests then per the GFDL, we need to keep the contribution history public. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Closure was a reasonable reading of consensus and not a breach of deletion policy. Deor (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn Consensus wasn't there in this AFD, and unlike so many IPC AFDs, there was an attempt to demonstrate sources actually on the topic of "X in popular culture" - these are the relevant sources, so there is no reason for deletion from overriding policy. (The ability to engage in original research and cite "X appeared in media Z" is irrelvant.) However, my opinion is only a weak overturn because the article was not written from those sources and was not on its topic, it was merely yet another laundry list of "X appeared in media Z" claims. The only part of this article that a good article on the topic would have retained is the lead; the entire rest of the article was material for the cutting room floor, and its continued inclusion is going to lead to AFD#3 eventually. GRBerry 14:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - it's always a difficult task, closing these sorts of discussions and invariably someone is going to be upset and contest it in one way or another. It might have been nice to see a little more clarification in the closure, particularly when dealing with such contentious topics and debates, but ultimately I do not see where the closure was in error or a misreading of consensus. Shereth 17:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The close was in error, because the close rationale states that "information that could possibly be encyclopedic can be included in the main article." In order to merge such information, the article needs to be restored and redirected without deletion. Plus, the incredible difference in arguments on both sides of the discussion reveal a clear lack of consensus one way or the other. Deletion is a last resort and something that we do not do when there is significant opposition and when as in this case editors are actively working to improve the article in question. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Userfy in preparation for merge. It's pretty obvious that the merge = keep argument is only being pushed as it results in a keep, and is a gaming of the Afd process. As can be seen by the changes in the article between Afd 1 and 2, no one is activeley working on it to improve it without the impetus of a deletion threat, so to make sure it is trimmed down properly in preparation for the clear consensus for keeping as a start point for mergeing, it should be userfied. I sincerely doubt, given the principled nature of the debate here, that anyone is actually willing to volunteer to do this though, so if not, endorse. WP:NOTFINISHED cannot be gamed as a way to permanently keep what has been assessed as a poor quality list of trivia, with the same people turning up time and again on principle that wikipedia is a specialist trivia server, and then disappearing again until the next Afd. MickMacNee (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

if you want to argue that we should as a general matter of policy consider a merge decision as equivalent to a delete, I just might agree with you once we have a chance to explore all the ramifications. But as regards this particular situation, wikipedia is a server of a great many things in a comprehensive way, and that will necessarily include a good deal that any one person here will consider unjustifiable trivia. 128.112.203.68 (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

'Trivial relationship' is realy not a hard concept to define for a large number of rational and objective people. We are talking about an article linking a Japanese cartoon bus and a word uttered by a Prison Break character here. Anybody on the 'wikipedia can store anything' listification crusade surely has more important articles to make a fuss about than this. MickMacNee (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and restore No consensus to delete. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore This was an obvious failure to appropriately judge consensus. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore No consensus to delete. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore Did not seem to be closed in accordance with WP:DGFA#Deciding whether to delete, especially points 2 and 4. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - Yes it was a very long and complex discussion, but the closing admin's conclusion seems to be as substantially correct as the topic allows. Procedure was followed properly and there is no valid reason to overturn. Doc Tropics 22:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)