User talk:Stifle/Archive 1008b

Question on WP:IINFO
I did leave a comment at Articles for deletion/2006-2008 Southern Oregon Raiders football teams but I wanted to also place a question here--it's a question to help on interpretation.

In WP:IINFO it states: "In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader" and my question is this--how can we tell when we as editors have provided that "sufficient explanatory text" so that we meet the standard? I'm curious on your take on it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an "in addition". The data still has to be discriminate and encyclopedic. Stifle (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And that's where my hang-up is... what do "indiscriminate" and "discriminate" mean? If "indiscriminate" truly means "Without care or making distinctions, thoughtless" then the article in question certainly is not "indiscriminate" because the information is specifically focused on a topic, and the antonym seems to support that.  Which brings me right back to the original quesiton--how do we know?--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no one guideline that applies to everything — like most other things in Wikipedia, articles are analysed on a case by case basis. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. I'm actually ending up with more questions than before, but I'll sit and stew on them for a while...--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking of writing an essay on "discriminate vs indiscriminate" information. I think this discussion might be a good quote.  Sure, it's Wiki and I can take without asking (at least, I think) but I'd rather have your permission first.  You okay with that?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, just put something on the talk page saying that contributions were received from User:Stifle. Stifle (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I've posted at Discriminate vs indiscriminate information and invite you to take a look.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Username
I thought I wanted the whole userpage and talk page canceled, but changed my mind. Hopefully that's o.k.--JoeCool950 (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem. Stifle (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

DRV and consulting with the closing admin.
I'm not sure what award one would give for your hard work in trying to get people to not waste time on the DRV page until they've talked to the closer but if there were a logical barnstar for it, I'd give it to you. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Stifle (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I added this to the suggestion in hopes of avoiding this. Best! -- Suntag  ☼  20:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I tend to check the deleting admin's talk page before asking the question, but that doesn't hurt either. Stifle (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Freakishmedia
He's still editing with no name change and uploading dubious images. — Realist  2  17:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * User blocked indefinitely, images speedied. Stifle (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers :-) — Realist  2  19:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Suspended from ACC
Why was I suspended from the Account Creation tool? Techman224 Talk  01:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You should have received an email to inform you. You have been closing requests as "Taken" despite that the username requested was not taken, despite my warning to you not to do so. Stifle (talk) 08:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any email from the mailing list about this. If it wasn't sent through there, can you give me a email address so I can search for it. Techman224  Talk  02:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what email address it would have been sent from or to. However, the text of the email was:
 * Having reviewed your recent account creator activity, it appears that you are still closing requests as "Taken" when the username requested does not already exist. These should be deferred to admins, as I explained on your talk page. I regret that as a result, your access to the account creation tool has been cancelled.
 * I hope this clarifies the situation. Stifle (talk) 08:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, you should have said talk page instead of email, that way I don't have to hunt through all my email messages. Techman224  Talk  21:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Carnival Dream Image
Why did you remove the image for the carnival dream render? If you actually read the description, and the talk page, you would have known that I knew it was the wrong rationale for use. It's a render of a ship. The closest thing wikipedia listed was a building. I asked for someone to modify the tag to fit what was appropriate. The image most definitely qualifies for fair use. You're quite the unhelpful administrator. (Drumz0rz (talk) 03:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC))
 * While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?
 * Please specify the exact name of the image that you are referring to. I have deleted quite a number of images recently and cannot find this one. Please also remember to be civil. Stifle (talk) 08:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

CC BY SA 3.0 images
Dear Admin Stifle, Is there any way anyone could check through the 49,000+ images by typing in a name such as 'Ancient Egypt' or 'Cairo Museum': There isn't even any alphabetical arrangement for the titles of images--to see if any are worth moving to Commons. Do you have any ideas here. I don't think this question is addressed by your wizard. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Try Special:Search.
 * In future, you might get a quicker reply to a question anybody can answer by checking out Help desk. Stifle (talk) 08:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Input request
Hi. Last year, you granted an unblock request from me, and also later blocked me. I am now the subject of a community discussion at Administrators%27_noticeboard. I'd like to request for your input at that discussion. Thank you, --G2bambino (talk) 06:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Replying there. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you - please see my response here. I'd like to further ask for your input on that specific issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have any further input on that matter. Stifle (talk) 14:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisting AfDs
Thanks for the heads up, I usually do but I may have missed a couple. Will double check in the future. TravellingCari 11:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Shear Genius seasons articles
Hey, I can't do moving pages in move button. Can you please the requested article to be move:

Shear Genius (Season 1) → Shear Genius (season 1) Shear Genius (Season 2) → Shear Genius (season 2)

Both are using NC-TV. ApprenticeFan (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done; in future please use WP:RM to request a move. Stifle (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Latin pedantry
Quoth the stifle: "no clear and convincing reason presented why any of the previous consensi should be disregarded".

Strictly speaking, "consensus" isn't really a latin word at all but an old french construction con-sensus (together-feeling). The sensus root is latin, and if you really wanted to pluralize it that way, you need to take into account that it is a supine, and therefore restricted to accusative and ablative. So "consensūs" (that a long u, you might reasonably transliterate as concensuus in english) in the accusative or "consensibus" in the ablative (which would only valid if the you were moving away from them, or if you meant "by way/in the manner of concensuses" or "during the time of the concensuses".

This has been your nerdness dose for today. If this had been a real latin emergency, it would have been declinated appropriately. :-) &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (Placeholder for an appropriate reply.) Stifle (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

CSD R2
I may have messed up. This was from template namespace, not article namespace, so CSD R2 may not apply. See this and this. Sorry for the confusion. -- Suntag  ☼  17:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No big deal; the creator listed it for RFD so it's a G7 anyway. If folks want it back they can ask me. Stifle (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/A Plea for Purging
You should have closed this as "plea granted" :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:ICanFeelYou.jpg
I noticed you declined the speedy tag I put on this image. I realise that generally I1 is only for images of the same file type, but considering this is an inferior version of a non-free image and it isn't being used in any articles, I thought it might be covered under the general heading of the criterion (redundancy). Sorry for any trouble and time wasted. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 12:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is what CSD:I1 should say, but I have to go on what it does say. Feel free to open a discussion at WT:CSD if you wish. Thanks for dropping by. Stifle (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

O+K Research deletion contest
I wish to challenge the deletion of a page that you deleted. Aadieu (talk) 13:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The page title is O+K Research.
 * I have read the reason for deleting the page and I feel it was incorrect because the company has significant regional relevance.
 * The following sources back up my claim (sources in Russian, but because the company serves international brands, an English-language article would be more relevant):
 * http://www.socismr.com/themes/default/material.asp?folder=1876&matID=2247 - rating includes multinational giants; company makes top10 of domestic companies and top 20 of all service providers, which in the context of the largest European country (Russia) and its coverage of the CIS as well, makes it significant; furthermore, the article is a year old, and the company enjoys a 40% annual growth rate
 * http://directory.esomar.org/details.php?type=directory&id=1567
 * http://www.sostav.ru/news/2004/02/r4/
 * http://www.adlife.spb.ru/news/1166.shtml
 * http://www.iris-net.org/
 * http://oirom.ru/?pt=4
 * http://yaca.yandex.ru/yca/cat/Business/Marketing_and_Advertising/Marketing/geo/Russia/Northwest/Leningradskay_oblast/Petersburg/  - number 7 in marketing services according to the top Russian-language search engine; furthermore, 3 of the companies above it are niche market things and not relevant
 * http://www.advi.ru/pages.php3?id=9
 * Thanks for your message. I am just about to log off and will look into this issue later or tomorrow. If you do not wish to wait until then you are welcome to make a listing at deletion review. Stifle (talk) 14:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your patience. I have reviewed this matter and while I cannot understand most of the pages you cited, there is a chance that this company might be notable so I am going to list it for a community decision on the deletion. This discussion takes place at Articles for deletion/O+K Research and you can contribute. Stifle (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

List of video game slang
I'd like a copy of the aforementioned article so I can put it in Wiktionary, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstebbins (talk • contribs) 15:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, can you provide me with a template to initial the proposed deletion process, so I can put it into another list of slang terms? I can't seem to find it anywhere, not even on the Proposed Deletion Policy page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstebbins (talk • contribs) 15:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~ at the end.
 * I've restored the page you requested; it's at User:Dstebbins/List of video game slang. Once you have transferred it properly to Wiktionary, please tag it with db-u1 to delete it again.
 * To propose an article for deletion, add . Anyone can object to such a proposal by removing the tag, but if nobody does that after 5 days, the page will be deleted.
 * To nominate an article for community deletion discussion, add {{subst:afd}} and follow the instructions in the template.
 * You can read more about deletion at Deletion process. Stifle (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:JDOConner.jpg
I disagree with your decision to keep Image:JDOConner.jpg. The image is a derivative of a copyrighted work and the person is still living, which, to me, means the image fails WP:NFCC#1 as a replaceable fair use image of a living person. Your decision at the IFD discussion was just "keep" with no supporting statement. Can you give me some reason why use of this image does not violate NFCC#1? If I don't hear from you, I'll ask for a review in a couple of days. -Regards, Nv8200p talk 16:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right actually. I've deleted the image. Stifle (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Atnrrlogo.gif
What is the appropriate course of action for this file? It was used in only one article, and has been replaced with a PNG version. It no longer serves any useful purpose. I originally uploaded the GIF image. Please advise. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It'll be deleted on or after next Friday as an orphaned fair use image. Stifle (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Radu Bagdasar deleted
Can you tell me why Radu Bagdasar was deleted? He is the only Romanian scientific author that published books in the domanains he did. Is Wikipedia censored like in China? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nancy Nemes (talk • contribs) 11:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~ at the end.
 * Did you miss the section in User talk:Stifle/wizard/deleted/undelete1/error called "Articles for deletion"?
 * Radu Bagasar was deleted following a consensus of the community at Articles for deletion/Radu Bagdasar. There was no objection to the article being deleted. Please note that the opinions of new and unregistered users are not generally considered at discussions. If you wish to challenge the deletion, you can make a listing at Deletion review. Stifle (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

request article content for a transwiki.
I'd like the content of the list of video game slang article so I can put it on wiktionary —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstebbins (talk • contribs) 13:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you already asked me that above. It's done now. Stifle (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Second opinion
Hi, I was again working on WP:PUI when I encountered Image:GuadFlag.png listed at Possibly unfree images/2008 September 19. I think it should be deleted and was already halfway of removing it, but just to be sure I would like a second opinion on this. Do you agree with the deletion? Garion96 (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's correct to delete that and any image that has been on WP:PUI for two weeks with no objections raised to its deletion. Stifle (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that I know. I just wanted to be sure if it is really copyrighted or not. Even when no objections I still don't delete the image if the license turns out not to be invalid. I couldn't find any info on public domain in France. Either one of the two images is wrong (and they are both the same image). One has a PD tag, the other one has a non-free tag. Garion96 (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Take it it's non-free unless you have evidence to the contrary. Stifle (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

List of traps in the Saw film series
Can you explain to me what you meant by "general weight" considering 90% of the delete votes just said "Cruft" and little else?--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?
 * "Cruft" is not an invalid reason for deletion. Stifle (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read the wizard, and it just told me to go to DRV if I disagreed with your decision. Which I'm still undecided on, because I have a feeling the same people will just hop right on and yell "Cruft!"
 * The Keep/Delete comments were close to evenly matched in terms of number, so I still don't see what you meant by "general weight". And "cruft" isn't invalid, but it's not recommended by itself for deletion arguments. There wasn't a clear consensus to delete or keep either way.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You know this already, but that's an essay you linked to. I'm happy with my closure and you're welcome to use DRV if you wish. Stifle (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to know why you felt that the "general weight" was in favor of deletion, that's all.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with my closure and you're welcome to use DRV if you wish. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I know. You've told me that already. I'd just like to why you felt that "general weight" of the discussion was in favor of deletion.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

declined 3rr
Hi,

you recently found no violation at [[WP:AN/3RR; I don't challenge your finding. However, I did respond Indeed. As I wrote in filing the report (above) The letter of 3RR has not been broken. I also wrote Maybe a serious warning from an admin, rather than a block, would be better at this point, and I still believe so. The editor is well-intentioned, but does not understand he needs to collaborate. A message from an uninvolved admin might help. Thank you. With that in mind, could you take another look? Jd2718 (talk) 00:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've left him a message on his talk page. Stifle (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And I've managed to exchange nicer words with him. We will work this out. Thank you for the assist. Jd2718 (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist: Addendum
Stifle, if Wikipedia is not a democracy, why did you close the subj AfD as no consensus when it clearly has no independent, reliable sources and fails WP:MOVIE? I'd like to understand your reasoning, as I'm inclined to take this one to DRV, but don't want to look like an idiot if you had an unarticulated reason for the closure. Jclemens (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?
 * There really was no consensus. Lack of references is a reason for improvement, not deletion, and the AFD participants did not agree that it failed WP:MOVIE. You're welcome to DRV it, of course, but I think you might be better off relisting it next month if it hasn't improved. Stifle (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I had thought the closing Admin would discout the keep !votes asserting notability. Since aside from the completely unsubstantiated !votes, the basic argument for keeping the article was not simply that it was notable, but that it was notable even if no reliable sources existed. The only argument for passing WP:MOVIE is winning an award from a minor film festival, which would be very difficult to convince anyone who honestly reads the link, in my opinion. I guess you won't agree with me, but I don't think a group of editors pulling out their crystal balls should override arguments firmly rooted in the guidelines. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with my closure; please feel free to list at DRV if you disagree. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Your closing of AfD:Opal Koboi
Would you mind taking another look at Articles for deletion/Opal Koboi? I am quite confused by your keep closure, and your rationale at closing ("The result was keep.") is not very descriptive. I feel very strongly that one could not have reached that conclusion by reading through the discussion. There are more keep votes than delete votes, yes, but AfD is not a vote and none of the editors in favor of keeping the article were able to address any of the concerns brought up in the nomination. In particular, User:Starblind and myself both conducted several searches for sources and found zero reliable secondary sources to support this article. I am very confused at how you could interpret a keep consensus based on the discussion and the arguments presented. At the very least, could you please expand your closing summary to better explain how you interpreted a consensus to keep the article based on the AfD discussion? --IllaZilla (talk) 01:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?
 * Starblind !voted to keep, so it's clear that he was satisfied with the sourcing. You and Hiding were the only delete !voters as against six keeps; there was no other possible closure. You're welcome to DRV it but I strongly doubt it'll change. Stifle (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I did use your wizard. It brought me to a page of options, from which I chose "Some other admin action which I took" (since there was no other option that seemed to apply). It brought me to this page, from which I clicked "leave me a message". Left the message and it appeared here. I'm not sure how your wizard works, but I followed it step-by-step.
 * I will probably take it to DRV, as again I feel strongly that AfD is not a vote, and none of the "keep" voters were able to address the concerns voiced in the nomination (original research & complete lack of verifiability). Yes Starblind voted to keep, but he was unable to come up with any reliable sources to back up his keep vote (he did come up with 1 source, but further investigation of that source showed it did not give substantial coverage, only mentioning the subject in passing). --IllaZilla (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * While I probably would have !voted to redirect this article, this AfD showed a clear keep consensus. Uninvited, I endorse this closure. Tan   &#124;   39  22:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point on the Wizard; there's a path that suggests people who have issues with a deletion I make after an AFD to go straight to DRV, but none for other closures. I'm adding one now. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

--IllaZilla (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)==Deletion review for Opal Koboi== An editor has asked for a deletion review of Opal Koboi. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. IllaZilla (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Am I missing it? Here are the active discussions... Tan   &#124;   39  02:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It can be found at Deletion review/Log/2008 October 12. I'm not sure why it's not appearing on the "Active discussions" list. There is another article on the Oct. 12 log that does not appear on the active list either (The DFenders)...not sure why. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems to be fixed now. Although you listed it on the wrong day's log. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It was on the right day when I started typing it (as I followed the link from the DRV main page). However I am on Pacific Standard Time so it's likely that UTC rolled over to the next day while I was in the process of writing the DRV nom, hence it might have been saved under the wrong day when I clicked save. Simple problem of times zones, I guess. Anyway, fixed now. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Move discussion at Septimus following Deletion Debate
Planning to leavie this message to alert all the parties in the deletion debate and all editors of the article to the page move discussion at the article talkpage, thought I'd best contact you first as I don't want to violate WP:CANVASSING and get your approval for both letter and spirit.

The users I'm planning to contact are:

From the AfD: Hiding, DGG, Eusebeus, Nyttend, Mr. Absurd

From the article history: Jupiter Optimus Maximus, Ecoknight, Treybien, Realkyhick, Mereid, AnnaFM

which is everyone who's ever done a non-wikignome edit to the article and is not an IP, as well as every non-IP who participated in the deletion debate.

The planned Message is:

Hello,

I am contacting you because you have editted either the article Septimus or its deletion discussion to alert you to the fact I have proposed a page move.

I have copypasted this text to the talk page of all editor on the deletion debate and anyone who has editted either the article or its talkpage whilst logged in (other than bots).

NullofWest Fill the Void 01:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

NullofWest Fill the Void 01:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't have an opinion on this. Stifle (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No longer an issue, was already moved before I could check your reply. NullofWest Fill the Void 10:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This image license
Dear Stifle, Do you know why is it that I cannot place 'live' this link on Livius' comment here: http://www.livius.org/mail2.html into the licensing for this image of Image:Ptolemy i bm.jpg An Admin on Commons told me this image can be moved to Commons....just got to place the 'attribution' license as I did here (not pd as someone else had done) But for some reason, I can't make the copyright link go 'live' so that people can just click on the link and read Livius' copyright statement here. It is a very good picture of Ptolemy I, king of Egypt. Any ideas? --Leoboudv (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please place questions about image copyright on Media copyright questions. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Closing of Object Prevalence
Hi Stifle, Just pointing out that you closed a discussion you were involved in. I think the close was perfectly fine, but I thought that was against policy. No biggy to me, but I thought I'd give you a heads up. Hobit (talk) 03:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It probably is, but I'll call it an IAR :) Stifle (talk) 08:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Greensborough Football Club
Thankyou for deleting this article. Now that the precedent has been set please delete the following articles: Regards CTDU (talk) 11:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Heidelberg Football Club
 * North Heidelberg Football Club
 * Bundoora Football Club
 * Diamond Creek Football Club
 * Eltham Football Club
 * Hurstbridge Football Club
 * Lalor Football Club
 * Lower Plenty Football Club
 * Macleod Football Club
 * Montmorency Football Club
 * Northcote Park Football Club
 * Panton Hill Football Club
 * Parkside Football Club
 * Reservoir Football Club
 * Watsonia Football Club
 * West Preston Lakeside Football Club
 * Whittlesea Football Club
 * There are no binding precedents on AFDs, and if you wish to have those articles deleted you will need to list them on AFD as well. (You can make a single listing for all the clubs if you wish (see WP:BUNDLE and cite the previous AFD as a precedent.) Stifle (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)