Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Moseley

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 01:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Moseley

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This AfD process has been further disrupted by a suspected sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs), Wiggins2 (talk · contribs). See his contributions: they consist almost solely of soliciting others to come to these AfDs and vote keep.

As a result of the serial disruption of AfD and other questionable behaviour, I have raised a user RfC on Jason Gastrich, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal: Everything above was posted to skew the voting and make people turn against me and bias their viewpoint of the nomination and the entry. It's a pretty sick tactic. It shows they care little about the actual strength of the entry; which should be the only thing considered. Since the "warnings" have been posted, some people have even said that they've voted only because of the alleged misconduct. Consequently, they and the people who are engaging in this witchhunt should be ashamed of themselves. They've done irreparable damage to their integrity and to Wikipedia. --Jason Gastrich 01:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand how you say "Everything above was posted to skew the voting and make people turn against me" with a straight face. You don't even deny soliciting inclusionists to this page. David D. (Talk) 01:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand because you are one of them and on their side. Posting all of this nonsense on the top of the voting page is inappropriate and it has skewed the voting. This is shameful behavior. --Jason Gastrich 01:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm one of them? I voted based on the fact it is a POV (or you did poor research) entry and non-notable. No other criteria were considered. You broke the spirit of the rules and when that happens it should be pointed out. You appear to be still denying that what you did was wrong despite an RfC? I notice you are already trying to appeal to a higher authority. That seems to fit the normal pattern. Good luck, I suspect you will find little sympathy. David D. (Talk) 02:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Your rebuttal is very untrue. The comments posted above were to question the strength of your argument, as per WP:SOCK it is prohibited to use a sockpuppet to create a illusion of a broader support for your side of the argument. Your "campaigning" comes from you and your sockpuppet, and you even admitted that you use sockpuppetry to aid yourself in AfD. Sycthos ^Talk 05:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not everybody who get published and has some kind of ministry is notable. This one isn't.

Delete. A.J.A. 05:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. - WarriorScribe 06:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. hius qualifications are from a diploma mill. self-styled religious leader.Blnguyen 06:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He has degrees from various institutions. Which one do you call a diploma mill? --Jason Gastrich 22:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable. What does a diploma mill have to do with anything? Logophile 07:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It means he didn't earn his credentials, he bought them. --Calton | Talk 08:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you prove this? This is a large accusation, so I hope you have some proof. --Jason Gastrich 22:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If his credentials are from a diploma mill, then by definition he didn't earn credentials, he bought them. Is simple logic that big a problem for you? --Calton | Talk 00:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, below average professor, failing WP:BIO. Regularly reads academic papers at Oxford? Good for him, I read Private Eye myself. --Malthusian (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: and doesn't even read at Oxford. Reads at Oxford_Graduate_School which is based in Tennessee. Hm. Mark K. Bilbo 19:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it says he reads academic papers 'at' Oxford University, with a wikilink to that university. Doesn't seem to be any confusion. --Malthusian (talk) 09:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable with his very influencial book (illustrated), particularly in the evangelical end of the church and on Messianic Judaism issues. :: Kevinalewis : please contact me on my Talk Page : 10:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Easy Delete - clearly not ntable. Harvestdancer 17:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

very quick search brings up multiple sites recommending this main title. Admitedly largely within the Messianic community but that means is is significant to them, surely that makes it notable as a text for understanding the movement. These edit wars over matters that some seem not to know anything about is beginning to get me down. Or do you all really know a lot on this particular subject area. :: Kevinalewis : please contact me on my Talk Page : 17:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, multiple sites (as in more than one!) recommend this guy! All the people voting to delete must be crazy; obviously, having one's work recommended on more than one site is sufficient for inclusion in wikipedia.

Seriously, if you want to make a case for keeping, you have to show this person satisfies WP:BIO. --Pierremenard 23:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This one barely passes WP:BIO, but would rather err on the side of keep for those who may have an interest in this subject. Hall Monitor 18:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has maybe one or two (small press?) books and this "Oxford Graduate School" is seriously questionable. They are not affiliated with who they seem to be trying to make people think they are (see: Oxford_Graduate_School). I can't find any real evidence this person is notable. Mark K. Bilbo 19:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep notable author B.ellis 21:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Notable author, scholar, and president of a university. Nominator nominated 10 Christian biographies for deletion, yesterday. Good faith is hard to assume here. --Jason Gastrich 22:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Watch Out Potential branchstacking : [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7].192.43.227.18 02:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is nothing more than encouraging Wikipedians to vote. --Jason Gastrich 02:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's spamming to skew a vote. Skewing votes is by definition an act of bad faith. This needs to stop. FeloniousMonk 03:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with letting people know a vote is going on. Rogue 9 10:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since not one of his degrees appears to come from an accredited institution, leading one to question how genuine his claims to notability are. Yet another nonentity from the keyboard of Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs); note to closing admin: watch out for the usual vote-stacking (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Louisiana Baptist University people (second nomination)). This kind of crap makes me almost ashamed to be a Christian. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But at least you're not a Baptist seeing this stuff. A.J.A. 05:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That's "diploma mill" not university. Just zis Guy, you know?

You can't vote twice.the1physicist 22:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NN Eusebeus 23:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - which criterion of WP:BIO does this person satisfy? --Pierremenard 23:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though I was impressed with the fact that "he regularly reads academic papers at Oxford University." But since I regularly read the Pixley Press and the ingredients on the back of cereal boxes and I don't get an article here, why should he? FeloniousMonk 03:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delele as per nom.--nixie 04:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unaccredited institutions and esp. the references to Oxford are misleading, which lends doubt to the intent of the entire article. True academic study as claimed (Princeton University and the like) should result in the existence of citations in academic journals, which are notably absent, even with the AFD. Article seems to simply be promotional propaganda for the books, with no other encyclopedic information. Santaduck 09:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pierremenard. Stifle 18:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a minor author and there are serious verifiability problems in this article. Reads papers at Oxford University ? Hmm, not a good start. He has three Ph.D. degrees from very minor (if real) universities. Why would he need three Ph.D.'s? Very unnotable. David D. (Talk) 19:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read papers at Oxford University. I read the Times there while I was waiting to see the Bursar of Somerville, for example ;-) - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bursar of Somerville is in Tennese? No? Well, this "Oxford" the person in question has read at is. See: Oxford_Graduate_School. I suspect somebody is trying to deliberately mislead. Mark K. Bilbo 15:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep(strong) I tend to think that pretty much everyone who is published is notable. If you think this guy is a quack, and have the citation for it, include it in his page so that people can read it when they look him up. Anyway, article could use some citations and cleanup, but clean it up, don't delete it. This is a 2 day old article. Give it a week or two to get straightened out, don't kill it! Brokenfrog 20:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Anyone published? You do know that these days, it takes all of $500 to be published and appear in Amazon searches? See here. Mark K. Bilbo 15:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Guy et al. Brokenfrog, your reasoning escapes me utterly. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep university-related topics are notable. Cynical 21:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two books (though one is only 64 pages), and the used copy listings seem to indicate a reasonable print run for both. Remove the unsourced stuff, but hang onto it. -Colin Kimbrell 21:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have some stuff published (nobody's ever heard of me, but I am published), and I read papers from all kinds of accredited universities...so when is someone going to write up MY article???? bcatt 21:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You got two books with 5,000+ circulation? If so, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll write you up. -Colin Kimbrell 00:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Devein 22:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --kingboyk 23:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Colin Kimbrell ··· rWd · Talk ··· 07:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, published author. Alphax ^τεχ 07:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Published author, don't see how people not liking his university is relevant. Rogue 9 10:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's because most of the arguments for 'keep' boil down to 'he's an academic' (which is irrelevant if your academic qualifications are from diploma mills) and 'he writes books' (which is irrelevant if no-one reads them). --Malthusian (talk) 12:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please support your assertion that "no one reads them". At best 'emotive language' surely. His main title is offered in so many different places that it a little strange if it is bought and read by no one. :: Kevinalewis : please contact me on my Talk Page : 12:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to support my assertion, nor is it possible to do so, it being a negative. The burden of proof is on the writers of the article to show that this person is notable. Your claim that if you publish your book in enough places, someone will read it, strikes me very shaky when we consider that to be an encyclopaedia everything must be verified. --Malthusian (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple published works. The "diploma mill" acuser needs to put up or shut up with evidence to make any case for deletion. --StuffOfInterest 12:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain. As soon as this started turning into a Christian vs. everyone else debate I lost interest. Unfortunately, many of those voting keep are claiming that everyone else is anti-Christian. This wasn't so, but if it is repeated enough it may become truth. --StuffOfInterest 15:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone can publish 'works'. So far there is little evidence his works meeting the criteria in WP:BIO. As for diploma mill, the article admits that he has 'qualifications' from the infamous LBU and Oxford Graduate School, both unaccredited, and several other so-called universities we don't have articles on. Then you have the lame attempts to link him with Princeton and Oxford University by bad wikilinking. And finally we have the, ah, close association of this article with other diploma mill graduates, one in particular. The diploma mill accusations are very well founded. --Malthusian (talk) 12:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The guy's the founder of an institute. There's also an appropiate image. If he reads at Oxford, and he's been working at this thing for over twenty years, then it's definitely worth something. Informative, not a stub. Keep. - 13:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC) The Great Gavini ^{lobster telephone}
Strong Keep This is a perfectly viable encyclopedia article on a public figure that could very well be the subject of someone's research in the future. In such an event, wikipedia would come in handy. That is what wikipedia is for. I haven't heard a single good argument to why this should be deleted. Seriously, the next article I see where someone has mentioned the word "diplomamill" I'm going to go mad...Itake 15:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You really think diploma mills are notable enough for an encylopedia? Or do you just want to include everything regardless of quality? Being published is not the same as publishing quality. In my mind quantity should not overide quality. Are you in favor of abolishing notability? If so then no one can make an good argument of which you would approve. David D. (Talk) 18:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that the school is a diplomamill? Nowhere. Exactly. Now go away. Itake 18:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So Christian. Obviously this is a person not a school. It was you that mentioned diploma mill, above. I see that you can only address the question with an obnoxious retort. I'm convinced. David D. (Talk) 18:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So Retarded. I'm talking about the school, I'm guessing a person alone can't be a diplomamill. I did not bring up the diplomamill, I replied to earlier mentions of the word. Do read the discussion before you involve yourself in it. Itake 18:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More insults and you still have not addressed the original question. Of course it does not say it is a diploma mill it is written from a POV. Is that not obvious? Liberal references to Oxford University and Princton but no documentation of his presence in either place. Let's see, degrees from unaccredited insitutions and then off to Oxford and Princeton. Do you see how far fetched this is? It may be true but i am not going to accept that on face value. Do you always accept undocumented evidence this easily in other articles you edit? As far as LBU and diploma mill there is a pretty good link. See the talk page and the article for yourself. David D. (Talk) 19:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any unreferenced or otherwise unverified material should be stricken from the article, as per our official Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Best regards, Hall Monitor 19:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More talk and you still don't have a point! The LBU article does not say its a diplomamill, so its not a diplomamill. Any allegations about diplomamilling is listed right there, but its not a verified diplomamill. Even if it WAS a diplomamill, its still noteworthy. This entire encyclopedia is built on websites. Very few articles have references available in bookform or such, most build their references on website. Usually, I don't run into POV people like yourself so Usually I don't have that problem. Itake 19:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What have i said that is POV? That i think LBU is a diploma mill? Have you even looked at how the places operates? It gives credits for "life experience", did you miss that? It is unaccredited, did you miss that? This is evidence that substantiates my case. Yet you are fine with unsubstantiated claims that Moseley was working at Oxford and Princeton. Interesting. David D. (Talk) 19:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The diplomamill thingy, again, is not verified. This article is not about the LBU, not about a diplomamill and not about my religion. That you continously refer to the LBU as a diplomamill shows your obvious POV bias and that you cannot present a credible evidence for the deletion of THIS article. Instead you have to rely on ongoing disputes in other articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itake (talk • contribs)

I have made my case for this article to be deleted. You get frustrated by diploma mills being discussed but obviously that is part of a valid case against this entry. He has no quality qualifications and the author has resorted to assertions about alledged studies in notable universities that are not verfiable. Take all that out and there is not much left. This is not about knee jerk POV, it is about having quality articles about relevent people. Its just that your threshold is lower than mine. Wikipedia allows for such differences in opinion. David D. (Talk) 19:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, its just that I base my opinions on something else then pure POV bias and diplomamill theories. Itake 20:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horses for courses. David D. (Talk) 20:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. Justin Eiler 16:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Just do a google search, there's tons of info on this guy. Wynler 17:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep same as above. --Yonghokim 17:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason to delete this article. I think someone should fix any links that say "Oxford" that actually mean the one in tennessee. They all might not mean the Oxford in Tennesse, though. --Shanedidona 17:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable. Lerner 18:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly passes WP:BIO standards. ALKIVAR™ 18:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to at least scrape in. If his qualifications really are as flakey as suggested above, all the more important to have an NPOV account here. Andrewa 20:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep.--Hayson 21:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Moseley is noteable.the1physicist 22:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: article is compact, but quite short, maybe problems with notability, but I think this artile doesn't do any harm to wikipedia. Gubbubu 22:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, and agree with Andrewa. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this person is important for wikipedia. Yuckfoo 00:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: - This person is important to Wikipedia? Are you serious? Jim62sch 02:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ATTENTION

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29 "Something very funny happened today. I got two identical emails from Jason Gastrich through Wikipedia. You can make up your own mind as to whether this qualifies for meat-puppetry or stacking the vote. Here's the email. --Cyde Weys 16:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

Hello,

I noticed that you were listed as a Christian Wikipedian. I am, too. I wanted to let you know that in the last 24 hours, someone has nominated 12 Christian biography entries for deletion. Not only does this seem like bad faith and an affront to a lot of hard work, but I'd like you to come and vote on the entries. These nominations seem peculiar because some people are even presidents of universities and well known authors.

Below are some of the links that need attention. Thanks for your consideration.

By the way, I recently started an organization called Wiki4Christ (see http://wiki4christ.com). If you’d like to join a network of Christians with a purpose on Wikipedia, please see our site!

Sincerely,

Jason Gastrich

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/J._Otis_Ledbetter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Moseley

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Randall

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Ice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Combs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neal_Weaver

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Dorim_Kim

Thats insinuating bullshit. There is nothing wrong with alerting users to the fact that a bunch of delete-wannabies are attacking articles and demanding they get deleted without having any good reasons at all for the delete except the POV rantings of a guy that for some reason got to be an admin. Itake 01:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Insinuating" ... this guy is shopping for votes calling those who want to delete the pages as people with "bad faith." Using Christ as a tool to get votes. Targeting those of religion with religion for keep votes. Arbustoo 03:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable as an author. --Vizcarra 02:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arbustoo 03:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems non-notable to me. The canvassing for keep votes is also very worrying and not in the spirit of Wikipedia in my view. --Spondoolicks 19:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If he's writen stuff then he should at least have a little slice of wikipedia? I mean, Wikipedia is huge, everyone can have a share can't they? Everyone thinks that because he isn't in the news, that he shouldn't be included in wikipedia, the so called "sum of all human knowledge". But how do we know he isn't influencial? He effects hundreds with his words..... Further Note: I was brought here, like many others by Wiggins2, or as he wants to be called, "Wiggie". I think we shouldn't be so quick to shoot him down, as I, & probably many others, are grateful for his post to draw our attention to this subject. I wouldn't mind if the other "side" did the same. But we cannot ignore the fact that this is defintely going to open wikipedia into two halves; Those who want to keep. Those who don't. I.E. Christians, & others. However, this should not be about religion. I would be ashamed of the christians on here if they only voted to keep the articles because they were christian orientated. This should strictly be business as usual, even though it does seem strange an editor would nominate so many christian articles. Maybe a hidden agenda? If an article's crap, then it should be deleted. Being an inclusionist, I will probably keep the most mundane article. However, the list of notable people list is like many others, & should not be here. To do so would be obvious bias. I ask everyone to not be drawn in with a strict "You're wrong, I'm right" situation, but be open & find a way to keep peaceful.... Spawn Man 04:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC). BTW, I hope my vote isn't discounted, I count myself as a influencial editor...[reply]
- The hypocrisy is amazing. In one sentence you frame this debate as being between "Christians & others" and then in the very next sentence you say, "this should not be about religion". It's not about religion! It's about maintaining the quality of the encyclopedia! We have WP:BIO for a reason. By framing this as a debate between Christians and others "seemingly" attacking Christians by (*gasp*) voting to delete articles of non-notable Christian figures, you are doing a disservice to the AfD process. --Cyde Weys 23:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - For F$#% sake!!!!!!! Have you actually read what I've written before spouting off that big mouth like everyone else whose's replied to my comments!!!???? NO!!! What I'm saying is is that everyone's taking it as a "Christian VS Other" debate! But it's not! What I'm saying is that if people keep on making it about religion, it will create a drift between the two parties, even if it is about religion. Read before you get all smarmy..... Spawn Man 02:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The individual clearly exists. Kurt Weber 15:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability test - an ACTUAL standard for encyclopedic merit, as opposed to the "mistaking the map for the territory" objectivist standard. --Calton | Talk 06:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything above. Ashibaka tock 18:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.