Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgetown University Lecture Fund

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 was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Georgetown University Lecture Fund

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}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is partly promotional, partly an organizational directory, partly a list of past accomplishments. This fund has brought speakers to campus--great. That does not make it a notable organization by our standards. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Perusing Wikipedia's records of similar articles for student organizations of equal and even lesser relative importance at Georgetown (Georgetown University Student Association, Georgetown University Improv Association) I can find no standard rule for when an article of this nature should be retained and when it should be retained. The Georgetown Improv Association's page has repeatedly been submitted as a candidate for deletion, but insofar continues as a fully functional Wikipedia article. Rather than delete this article, Wikipedia as a whole would be much more constructively served by editing for improvement, not throwing the baby out with the bathwater despite past precedent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tortillaflat (talk • contribs) 02:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please do not delete this page. Students at Georgetown University desired more transparency on how Lecture Fund operates and what it has been doing. That is why this Wikipedia page has been made and that is the sole purpose for why it has been been maintained. Deleting this page will set back Georgetown University's efforts to increase transparency between it and the students it aims to serve. Thom-293 (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this page (quoting Thom-293). Begging for mercy is not a good argument. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, please see WP:MERCY. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to Georgetown University. First let me say that we're not a platform for any sort of transparency. Just as we're not a forum for someone to push personal viewpoints, we're also not a forum for someone to use to show transparency or the lack thereof. If I may be so blunt, I'm not sure what transparency could be gained if the entire entry has been created by someone involved with the group. If all it takes to show transparency is an entry on a non-GU website, then I fail to see why this couldn't have been set up on some random wiki site that's not Wikipedia. As far as notability goes, there's nothing here to show that this fund has any notability separate from Georgetown University. There's plenty of mentions of the fund in relation to other things, but it hasn't been the focus of any substantial and in-depth coverage from any paper/news agency other than some of the school papers. That's not enough. Since redirects are cheap and the fund is briefly mentioned in the GU article, this could be redirected there but it does not at this time pass notability guidelines in order to merit an article. But like I said above, we're not some forum to prove one thing or another to any audience. We collect things that are notable per our guidelines. If the fund was notable outside of its association with GU then it'd merit it's own article, but it's not and we're not a personal website to post various promotional bits on. Arguments such as WP:ILIKEIT, WP:PLEASEDONT, and any variation of promotion is not what Wikipedia is for.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Thom-293. He's basically saying this is a blatant violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- BenTels (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment~~Keep~~: As I've iterated before, the Lecture Fund by no means is using this page as a blog, webspace provider, social network, or memorial site. I was updating outdated information on the page in my last edits. Like other Wikipedia pages, the Lecture Fund wikipedia page serves to give a summary of what the Lecture Fund is and what the Lecture Fund has been in the past to students in the Georgetown community and beyond. Lecture Fund has its own website that the group directs students to for promotional purposes on campus (lecturefund.georgetown.edu). To say that the Lecture Fund is not notable outside of the Georgetown community is also misguided. While the Lecture Fund isn't a well known speaker agency like William Morris Entertainment or CAA Speakers, it is featured in media each year. Below is a list of links to confirm:

Perhaps the Wikipedia community could make suggestions as to how we might change the Lecture Fund page for the better, but I feel as though the Lecture Fund page does not merit a deletion. Everything is carefully referenced and sourced, and the page fits in line with other Georgetown organization Wikipedia pages. Thom-293 (talk) 10:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One !vote per person. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with many of those links is that while the fund is mentioned, it is not the focus of the article. Brief mentions do not count towards notability. Other links go to blogs and various sources that can't be used as a reliable source, such as the Blogspot blog. You need sources that actually talk about the fund in-depth rather than mention it was one of several groups that put on a program. That doesn't count towards notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a long run-down of the sources on the article:

Sources 1- 21 are either primary sources or link to non-notable blogs. Primary sources can never show notability for the subject. At most they can only back up trivial claims and that's assuming that there are multiple independent and reliable in-depth sources about the subject. The Hoya is a student newspaper for the college. That pretty much makes it a primary source as well since it's associated. At the very least it makes it a dubious source for the same reason. The Vox Populi blog is not usable as a reliable source. Blogs are unusable as a reliable source for the most part because unless they're written by someone considered to be an absolute authority, the blogs aren't able to be used. By "authority" I mean that they pretty much have to be an established source or person to the point where they're considered notable in themselves.
Source 22 is the group's facebook page. Facebook is not usable as a RS. Even if it was, again it's a primary source.
Sources 23 & 24 suffer the same issues as 1-21, being the student paper and an unusable blog
Source 25 doesn't even mention the fund. It's an article about a lecture that was held at the college. Even though the fund helped set up the lecture, that doesn't extend notability to the fund.
Sources 26-38 either don't mention the fund or mention it so briefly that it can't even come close to showing notability. Being briefly quoted does not show notability. And again, having a notable speaker does not give notability to the group that helps fund the appearances.
Sources 39-40 are primary sources.
Sources 41- 43 are another student newspaper and suffer the same issues as the Hoya.
Sources 44, 45 are the same non-notable blog, Vox Populi.
Source 46 doesn't mention the group at all.
Sources 47-49 are by the student newspaper. See above.
Sources 50, 51 is just a routine notice of a lecture. This never shows notability in any format.
Sources 52 is a non-notable blog.
Source 53 [1] does include more information about the group, but the group is not the focus of the article and the information isn't in depth enough to really show notability.
Sources 54-64 consist of another notification of an event, more student newspaper coverage, a source that is 100% primary, and a non-notable blog entry.

Bluntly put, none of these can even come close to showing notability. The Cnsnews.com article is the only one that's somewhat usable and I wouldn't say it is in-depth enough to give notability and we need multiple independent and reliable sources that focus on the Fund in-depth. You just don't have those here and I want to repeat that helping to put on lectures with notable people does not give notability. That notability is not inherited by association with these people.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And just so you know, linking to tons of articles does not make the article seem more valid and is just citation overkill that serves no purpose because it still won't show notability. A thousand brief mentions in various reliable sources does not show notability. It just cements that the Fund should be mentioned in the GU article and this used as a redirect. Also... are you related or involved with the fund in any way? There's no rule that says that you can't edit if you have a conflict of interest, but it is discouraged because it's so easy to see notability where it doesn't exist and can lead to some complications. Tokyogirl79 (talk)

Comment~~Keep~~: As soon as she started, Tokyogirl79 was clearly on a mision to eliminate every single source just to make a point. Please see the links I posted previously in this conversation as well. Lecture Fund may not have a piece written about it in the Times (was that what Tokyogirl79 was looking for?), but I don't think credibility is an issue. Last I checked, Lecture Fund has a lot more sources than most university organization wikipedia pages to establish notability. The number of sources alone that mention the Lecture Fund and its work should make it clear that Lecture Fund is notable beyond just Georgetown. For the record, I am not a representative of Lecture Fund. I am a member of the speech and expression committee at Georgetown which governs Georgetown's free speech policy on campus. Thom-293 (talk) 10:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vote twice. It does not count as two votes. As for the sources in you've listed here (some of which are the same ones in the article), none of those show notability either. I don't know how many times I can state this, but being briefly or trivially mentioned in any number of sources will not show notability, no matter how many there are. The sources above either don't mention the group in-depth. Some don't really even mention it at all. Again, just because the group has helped set up lectures that might be notable or people that might be notable does not mean that the fund itself is notable. I don't have a vendetta against the group. I just don't think that an article should be kept because your university wants to use Wikipedia as a website to promote a fund and because you feel that it could be "useful" to have it on here. That is NOT what Wikipedia is for and notability must be established through several reliable sources (none of the blogs you've listed have shown notability) that actually focus on the fund. That there aren't any funds shows that it's not notable outside of the confines of the university and does not deserve an article on Wikipedia at this time, if ever. There's no actual depth of coverage here, just passing mentions. No matter how many brief and trivial mentions you try to stack onto the article, this won't change the fact that this fund has not received any in-depth and reliable coverage about the fund itself. And yes, an article about the fund in the Times would actually be a good start towards notability. But we'd need more than one source.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, promptly after stating that she has no vendetta, Tokyogirl79 fully explained her vendetta against this group. Futhermore, in what can only seem to be a strategy to damage my reputation on Wikipedia in any way she can, Tokyogirl79 filed a complaint on my user talk page stating that I was engaging in "conflict of interest" practices despite the fact that I am not a member of Lecture Fund in any way. The user did this right after an attempt at trying to shoot down my case. I don't need to be a Wikipedia admin to know that Wikipedia has done many good things for society both on purpose and inadvertantly. My goal was to update a page to give a bettter summary of what the Lecture Fund is and what the Lecture Fund has been in the past to students in the Georgetown community and beyond. While the Lecture Fund page may deserve more editing, I don't believe a deletion is warranted. Thom-293 (talk) 03:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(sighs) I'm bringing this up to the admin board. I do not have a vendetta. Regardless of how good your intentions are, you are creating a page for a college that you attend and as far as your purposes go, your edits could still be considered a conflict of interest since you are involved with a group that is directly or indirectly involved with the fund. You yourself have stated that you started this because you wanted there to be "more transparency" for the fund, which ultimately boils down to you adding a page because your organization wants more information out there about a fund that is run through your school. This does not mean that you cannot edit, just that you need to be careful because you could be (and are) seeing notability where there is none. A COI does not mean that you have to be a member of the fund. You can have a conflict of interest if you are a student at the school, someone who is part of a group run through the same school that wants to add an article, etc. Even if you had zero ties to the school or the group, the bottom line is that there is no in-depth coverage of the article in any reliable sources. No matter how much you might personally want this article to exist or how useful you think it might be to the students of your school, that does not exempt it from notability policies.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, just so anyone coming in knows, this is not decided on a vote. This is ultimately decided based upon the arguments for notability that follow notability guidelines. I encourage all new users to check out WP:NOT as far as what is not usable as an argument for inclusion.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability of the subject cannot be established from sources. I've just cut out a bulk of the article which was sourced to various parts of the Georgetown.edu website that listed everyone who has ever been paid to speak at the university, and that seems to have cut out practically all of the "reliable sources" utilized on the page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As suspected, most of the sources used on the page are in no way independent of the subject. There are also several sources used which do not even remotely mention the Lecture Fund in the article. Also the bolding of buzzworthy names in the section I've since removed is particularly telling that this is not a notable group.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... Seems like Ryulong deleted the entire page so I guess the damage is already done. Please look at the previous edits to judge the validity of the page (and the sources that Tokyogirl79 disputed) since that was the page in question when we were engaged in discussion. COI seems weak at best here and should not be a reason to dismiss my argument. Kind of feel like I'm being bullied by the big guys at this point. Thom-293 06:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find news articles that are not from The Hoya, Vox Populi, or Georgetown.edu that prominently discuss the Lecture Fund, then perhaps it can be covered on Wikipedia. As it stood before I took out the puffery, the primary and secondary sources, and content which is just not relevant to discussion on Wikipedia, the article was not in line with the content policies anyway.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just reverted the page so that it is line with the discussion above and to help facilitate a fair admin review. Hope that makes sense. Thom-293 07:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was no such discussion that stated that you could undo the massive amount of edits I made to remove improper sources. However, will allow the closing administrator to view the page without the unnecessary bolding of people who visited or the entire run down of the E-Board.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My 2cents: Having been to gradschool at major US university, I can relate that speaker-fee funds are extremely pedestrian. At bigger (than Georgetown) places, they're even divided by school or college, e.g. Engineering, etc. The list of blue-wikilink speakers that are funded by such funds and their internal procedures are generally not noteworthy or interesting for a Wikipedia article in my view. (Most highly notable speakers have been to each major US university at least once, so should we proliferate such lists on Wikipedia, they'd be extremely lookalike.) And you can bet that any major figure like a US president is going to attract outside media attention when going to a university. None of these aspects make the Georgetown Fund noteworthy in itself. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tijfo098's very persuasive argument just above. Non-notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The notability of the subject has not been established using independent sources. (This is likely the case for several of the subjects included in the Georgetown University template, particularly the student organizations.) ElKevbo (talk) 05:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: I've also restored the version of the article as nominated to AfD. Ryulong's edits were, though made in good faith, unhelpful to the progress of this discussion. The restored content may be stripped again (by undoing my edit) in case the article is kept.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der yck C. 15:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I accept Tokyogirl79's research results and conclusions above (after a couple of random checks). My own search revealed nothing further and, bottom line, I can't accept that this topic meets the WP:GNG. Ubelowme _U ^Me 18:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many universities have internal funds for whatever reasons. They are generally not notable, so the Georgetown one is no exception. Wikipedia is not an advertisement or promotional tool. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Note this is almost identical to the issues at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgetown University Student Association (2nd nomination). Basically, both organisations fail WP:CORPDEPTH and there are no reliable independent sources. As well-meaning as the articles might have been and as useful as they might be (see WP:ITSUSEFUL), this article fails WP:GNG I'm afraid. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Note this issue is also identical to the issues NOT ONLY with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgetown University Student Association (2nd nomination), but with the Georgetown University Alumni & Student Federal Credit Union page, the Students of Georgetown, Inc. page, The Hoya page, Georgetown's WGTB page, the Georgetown Law Weekly page, The Georgetown Voice page, the Georgetown Emergency Response Medical Service page, the HOYA Clinic page, Georgetown's Delta Phi Epsilon (professional) page, the Philodemic Society page, The Georgetown Improv Association page, Georgetown's Mask and Bauble Dramatic Society page, Georgetown's Nomadic Theatre page, and Georgetown's United Students Against Sweatshops page. Let's get to work people! None of these groups have legitimate sources (they're just like the Georgetown University Lecture Fund page: one or two decent sources at best). We need to finish this campaign on Georgetown students and their stupid clubs once and for all! All these organisations fail WP:CORPDEPTH and there are no reliable independent sources. I mean, they may be useful, but honestly who cares (WP:ITSUSEFUL). Like Stalwart111 said, these articles all fail WP:GNG so kill them. Huntaman (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Suffice to say, please see WP:SPA. Stalwart111 (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Much as we'd like articles to meet notability requirements, I'm sure there's a less BITEy way of saying so! At least one article came via AFC. While some of the editors may not be around any more, I note the lack of welcome templates and don't think that referring to their stupid clubs is beneficial to discussion. Just my 2p. -- Trevj (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huntaman, you pretty much destroyed your own credibility with your reference to your "campaign on Georgetown students and their stupid clubs". •••Life of Riley (T–C) 16:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I'd seen this discussion sooner. I'm one of the few editors who brought Georgetown University to featured article status, and have volunteered with the campus ambassadors program to foster Wikipedia editing skills. I'll also likely be the one having to deal with the PRODs that have now been brought against each of the articles Huntaman listed in their angry comment. I've had to deal with editors who oppose the use of campus news sources regularly, and though its always an uphill battle, Wikipedia does generally defend their inclusion as third-party sources. But an articles use of them is simply not enough reason to propose it for deletion. The student groups that got articles tend to be either the oldest or largest in their field, and that's the main source of their notability. I don't know if I'll have enough time to work on all "their stupid clubs" this week, and any assistance is appreciated!-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 19:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I, and I'm sure others, appreciate where you're coming from... but I can't really see how a student-run newspaper is a reliable independent source for a student-run fund or student-run association at the same campus. Likewise, the website of the university at which either organisation is based. Both articles (but am happy to stick to this one at this particular AfD) rely heavily if not entirely on material written by Georgetown students, about Georgetown students. I would certainly appreciate examples of where WP has, "generally defend[ed] their inclusion as third-party sources" - although WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a great argument, it might give these discussions better context. The alternative would be to find other sources (if they exist) and bring them here for consideration. If they simply don't exist then I think you'll have a tough time getting consensus for a Keep position. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked with the Universities WikiProject for around five years, and the topic of campus sources comes up almost every time there's an article up for FAC or GAN. Certainly there's a strong preference for mass-media sources, but I've never seen there this sort of categorical attack on local publications as has come up this week. I think there's a genuine misunderstanding here about the nature of university journalism.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 00:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that those "sources" that do provide information about the fund are not considered "independent" of the subject and those that would be considered independent don't mention the fund at all (or only in passing, eg. "x person, a member of the lecture fund...") and so are not really sources. I have seen notionally non-independent / unreliable sources used to verify basic information in articles (it is contrary to WP guidelines but sites like IMDB are sometimes often used for basic biographic info) but these cannot be relied upon when determining notability. If you can produce multiple, reliable, independent sources that give significant coverage of the subject then it will meet WP:GNG. From WP:IS - "An independent source is a source that has no significant connection to the subject...". Can a student paper at Georgetown really be considered to have "no significant connection" to a student fund at Georgetown? Even the fact Hoya staff would be eligible to be fund general members (as Georgetown students, and I would suggest some would be) calls that into question. Also, I'm not sure that describing multiple AfDs as a "categorical attack" is helpful. That these articles suffer from the same problems is not the fault of the editors who noted that and then undertook a general clean-up by prodding them. Their argument, in doing so, is actually that the articles should never have been created in the first place and should now be deleted. I understand it represents a significant amount of work (I think everyone appreciates that) and it might be frustrating that these have all been "noticed" at the same time but you really do need to work on each of these individually rather than lumping them all together as an "attack" without actually addressing any of the issues. I'm sure other editors would be willing to assume good faith and allow you the time to address each one, as long as they can see someone is attempting to do so. Doing otherwise would be contrary to WP:CONSENSUS. Unfortunately, I think this article may have also suffered from some fairly extensive WP:LINKSPAMMING in an effort to "establish notability" which makes it difficult to establish what is worth keeping (if anything) and what is not. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the consideration. To be clear I'm not defending the Lecture Fund article here. Delete it because its not notable, but not because campus newspapers are unreliable. Again, suggesting that because students fund this group through their tuition, and somehow therefore have a "significant connection" is like saying that because citizens of Footown fund their government with taxes, those locals are therefore not reliable to write about what goes on in the place.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 04:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Student newspapers and university publications can be reliable sources, but they should not be counted toward the WP:GNG Because of their intensely local focus, being covered by such sources does not indicate notability. If they did, then every single club on every singe campus, as well as nearly any student government president would be "notable" and would have a wikipedia article.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, these sources must be supplemented, or notability established through additional means.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 04:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note Patrick, _oѺ^∞ IS COMPLETELY WRONG. ANNIHILATE THIS PAGE LIKE ALL THE OTHERS OF GEORGETOWN. These students probably worked really hard to get where they are but I don't want Wikipedia recognizing their accomplishments just like everyone else on this thread. Patrick, why are you acting so foolishly? If you want to delete this page dont defend the newspaper. If the newspaper is credible, it gives Georgetown University Lecture Fund notability no matter how much. WE WANT TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT LECTURE FUND AND ALL OF GEORGETOWN'S CLUBS ARE NOT NOTABLE. --Huntaman (talk) 07:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa there. I was going to try to stay out of this but you need to calm down. This really, really comes across like you have an agenda against the group and I'd really like it if you could take a deep breath for a second. Patrick's argument is that the newspaper isn't an automatic non-notable source. College papers can be considered a reliable source if they are long running and reliable enough. Not a major-major RS, but still show some notability. The issue here isn't really about whether or not the newspaper could ever be used as a reliable source as much as whether it should be considered a primary source since it's reporting about the college that runs the paper and whose students make up the staff. My argument was that since there are so many ties to the college, it can't be used as a reliable source and should be seen as a primary source when it comes to articles that are about the school or their funds or clubs. No matter how reliable a source is, if it is primary it doesn't show notability. Period. A good example of this would be that if a CNN reporter were to write a book and CNN reviewed it, that review would be considered a primary source since there's a potential conflict of interest in CNN reviewing the book. That's pretty much the case here, but on a smaller scale. Defending the reliability of the paper as a source for non-Georgetown articles does not mean that the sources suddenly become usable as reliable sources for anything directly relating to Georgetown University.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While you are spot-on, I believe User:Huntaman is being (trying to be?) sarcastic. User:Huntaman is (from his contribs) and Single Purpose Account, created for the sole purpose of commenting at this AfD. Neither of his substantive contributions have been particularly helpful and both have been aggressive and sarcastic. On the other hand, User:Patrickneil (Patrickneil_oѺ^∞) has demonstrated a willingness to assume good faith and participate constructively (as he has, I might add, since 2005) and I believe his comments/queries are genuine. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2012 (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.