Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media Temple (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep.  MBisanz  talk 06:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Media Temple
AfDs for this article: 


 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

advertising without relevant content. content not suitable for an encyclopedia. self-promotion and product placement. lacks substantial 3rd party objective evidence of notability from reliable sources Arrowhead (talk) 07:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Mysteriously, two users seem to have nominated this article within a few hours of each other, causing all sorts of confusion. The other one,, used the following incredibly similar nomination text at WP:AFD/Media Temple (2nd nomination):
 * They advertise their product/service without relevant content. The content and subject is not suitable for an encyclopedia. The company's position is for self-promotion and product placement and the article lacks substantial 3rd party objective evidence of notability from reliable sources.
 * I've speedily closed the other AFD as redundant to this one. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 09:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not a mystery. The creator of the article tried to delete the first second nomination AFD. Arrowhead (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, is uninvolved beyond having commented below. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 22:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. All of these issues appear to have been addressed in the previous AfD, which was closed as "keep". While the current sources are a little subpar, they're adequate, and I see no content in the article which seems particularly advertorial. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 09:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Articles with sub-standard references should be improved, not deleted. Toytown Mafia (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article is self advertising (which is not a goal of the Wikipedia)and there is not even one 3rd party references given. Nothing links to this article. Additionally Media Temple is a small not notable company (for an Encyclopedia like Wikipedia) which doesn't even have an ORCA entry (see ORCA.bpn.gov). Media Temple is not a pioneer of grid-hosting (see as reference: I. Foster, C. Kesselman, The Grid: Blueprint for a New Computing Infrastructure, 1999). Arrowhead (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC) - — Ucla2009 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I really don't see how lacking an entry on a particular government procurement database has any bearing on the company's notability. Most web hosts don't participate in government contract bidding - especially as government agencies usually do their own hosting. As Euryalus notes, there are already some third-party sources, and neither a lack of incoming links nor potential factual inaccuracy is not a valid reason for deletion. Also, you've already implicitly voted by nominating the article for deletion. You don't need to state your position again. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 22:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note, I have sticken the "delete" !vote by the nom Ucla2009/Arrowhead to avoid confusion. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note about your Note, you are not in the position to negate my contribution to this deletion discussion.
 * Comment - If the article was advertising, why would half of it be about the deficiencies of their most popular service? Toytown Mafia (talk) 12:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - more secondary sources would be good, but the article does contain third party references, one of which does describe it as a pioneer of grid hosting. As I said last time we had this AfD, it's not exactly Microsoft but there is moderate independent coverage in industry media. Euryalus (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note, Media Temple Inc. is not a pioneer in grid hosting (see reference given above). Additionally grid hosting provided by Media Temple did not work at all, so what was the notable invention? They replaced it by cluster hosting which is also invented by others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.94.16 (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - the book you're referring to is searchable at Amazon, and doesn't appear to mention Media Temple at all. To assist this discussion, could you please post the actual sentence(s) from the book that support your case that Media Temple is not a pioneer of grid hosting? Euryalus (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Amazon's "Look Inside" feature only lets you preview text in the first few chapters of most books. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 02:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? Hmm, showing my ignorance there. Mind you I've searched in this one for the word "grid host" and found references to pages well into the body of the book, so perhaps the entire thing is there. Either way it would be appreciated if the actual quote(s) could be posted here to inform the debate. Euryalus (talk) 03:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try to send you a PDF of the book. If not, get a copy from Media Temple Inc. Btw, did you ever see the Media Temple Headquarters? I did and I assure you, there is only space for maximum 4 people to work not 84 as statet in the article.97.93.94.16 (talk) 05:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't need a pdf of the book, just the text of the sections or sentences mentioning Media Temple. If they're too long to post here, maybe Talk:Media Temple would work better. Euryalus (talk) 06:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a place to advertise  small business. This is not appropriate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.93.8 (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)  - — 97.93.93.8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep - Media Temple easily meets WP:N, WP:CORP or any other notability guideline you want to throw at it. Ok, so it only meets WP:N and WP:CORP :) The article does need some major cleanup and sourcing, but AfD is not that place for that.  Just click on your handy "edit" link and start fixing things. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete (G11) – blatant advertisement, notable or not. Article reads like a PR piece, which is wikispam. MuZemike 00:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As an AFD has been closed as keep previously, this article isn't eligible for speedy deletion. In any case, it's not "blatant" advertisement - there's an attempt at neutral coverage here. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 01:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a place to advertise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.234.103.115 (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Delete


 * Delete* Article is blatant advertisement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.234.103.115 (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)  - — 74.234.103.115 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete* Article is blatant advertisement as it reads like a PR article 67.139.199.2 (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC) - — 67.139.199.2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete* Article is blatant advertisement as it reads like a PR article75.149.94.17 (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC) - — 75.149.94.17 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - Sockpuppetry is not a substitute for actual discussion. Please also note this is not a vote, so there's no point in IP-hopping just to add the same comment several times. Euryalus (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * comment to the above comment - this is not IP-hopping (how can you just decide this, because of it suit your needs?). Check the ip-addresses, and you will find out tha they are from all over the world and it is not forbidden just to write the word delete or blatant advertisement. It is not necessary to repeat the already given reasons for a deletion of a not notable company which is doing excessive self-advertising and giving unproved statements. This article is not worth to be in an Encyclopedia like the WIKIPEDIA. It it a just loss of quality of the Wikipedia if you keep it and this it not, what the community wants. Arrowhead (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that they're all making the exact same comment within a few hours of each other is incredibly suspicious, though. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 23:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I note also that immediately after the three IP's added exactly the same comment, a fourth IP, User:75.149.94.17 made repeated attempts to also add it, constantly deleting it then coming back every hour to have another go. With respect, this is exactly what you would do if you were hoping for the IP to change. No other expanation springs to mind for the dozen or so edits, especially as that IP had already commented earlier without apparent difficulty. Euryalus (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * YOU might know, that there are unexperienced users (the one you are talking about comes from Scotland! check IP)und you might know the fact, that there is usually not more then one ip change within 24h for dial-in or dsl-lines. If I would really enforce our company employees to give their statement here, that would result in a couple of hundreds different statements with different ip-adresses but I did not and Im not dependent on dsl-users, ask them to try to VOTE more then one time.Believe it or not! Forget all your theories of conspiracy. The article in question is not worth to be kept in a project like the Wikipedia! Just imagine how decision maker of the Encyclopedia Britannica or other big Encyclopedias would decide about this. With regards Arrowhead (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem extraordinarily familiar with the details of these users' activity. What is your connection with it? Also, 75.149.94.17 isn't Scottish. It's a Comcast Business line in Illinois, registered to "ELITE GAMES". Zetawoof(&zeta;) 01:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * and you seem extraordinary associated to (or maybe paid by) Media Temple Inc?! The user I was talking about had an ip related to BT ignite somewhere in Scotland. I don't know a user from "Elite Games" in Illinois but its good to see, that this ip is not a competitor of Media Temple Inc. isnt it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucla2009 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There are inexperienced users in this discussion. I am one of them. At any rate, the point remains that this is not a site to advertise and the article should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmsorensson (talk • contribs) 04:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC) - — Mmsorensson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 05:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * NOTE Checkuser has determined that is  and that neither is related to the various IPs that have commented  MBisanz  talk 05:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Disregard logical fallacies in the above discussion.—At the top of the AfD page, it says:  "Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate. For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem." This is what should have been done.—AfD is not cleanup; the AfD process determines whether Wikipedia should have an article with this title at all.  In this case, it should because Linguist has shown that Media Temple is a notable company.  If there's spam or advertising, fix it.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  08:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as per WP:BEFORE. AFD is not the place to clean up an article.Smallman12q (talk) 10:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep I concur with the users who argued above that this article needs cleanup, not deletion. I see the people arguing to delete as just repeating the same argument without engaging in the discussion.  If we want to make it read less like an advertisement, how about incorporating these sources:, (Italian:)  written specifically about something this company screwed up?  If you want sources in general, here are 213: .  Clearly notable!  Cazort (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 *  Strong Delete  The article does not meet the criteria to be kept in an Encyclopedia like the Wikipedia. The Company is not notable regarding the wikipedia Concept and project. No 3rd party links for revenue and/or number of employees are given. No 3rd party link is given which proves that Media Temple is the inventor of Grid computing (which is well known in IT since 1999 as far as I know, just read about Grid computing and/or hosting in the aforementioned source. Also Media Temple had a CCR (Central contractor registration) for small business in webhosting - see the requirements for this at bpn.gov. Also the assumed sockpuppetry by Euryalus is not proven. Even if 2 or more useraccounts using the same ip address and do contribute to this discussion, it is not neccessarily an evidence for sockpuppetry (same user) because different users might use the same proxy server and its ip address.
 * This discussion, the rescue flag, the behaviour of Euryalus and the blocking of the AFD initiatoris very unkosher! I have saved this discussion and will report it to the board of the wikimedia foundation resp. to their lawyers which I do know personally. I think the leadership of the wikimedia foundation will check is case, because they had great support from my company in the past regarding trademarks and important .eu-Domains. I guess they will not accept, whats going on here.
 * Dr. Heiner Neuling, CEO, Infochannel Group, Germany —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.93.8 (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Thanks for taking the time to express your view. A couple of points - firstly, you have already !voted here. I'm sure this is just accidental, and I've indented this, your second "delete" !vote to avoid confusion. Second, your statement implies a legal threat. If that wasn't your intention you should reword your comments. Thirdly, you say the article is not notable and does not have third party references. It would be helpful if you explained why you think this, making reference to the notability criteria. The article does appear to have third party references, so I'm a bit mystified why you say it doesn't. Lastly, you say you're a donor to Wikimedia. That's great and I hope you keep it up. However that doesn't entitle you to any special rights over article content, and doesn't particularly advance your case in this discussion. Happy to discuss any of these further. Euryalus (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment to comment - First off, I don't wanted to start a legal thread (I just explained that to an editor, see my ip-adresses talk page) and it is not sockpuppetry here. I do keep on supporting the wikipedia in the future and I do not want to have any special rights over the content of any article but I can't see any 3rd party content in the article. Everything provided is some kind of self-advertising of Media Temple Inc. The increase from 25 to 84 employees since August 2008 is very uncanny regarding to the companies history. They have not proven their pretended revenue yet. It is a small business company which might be good in public relations but this is not a criteria to meet the wikipedia quality standards.     —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.93.8 (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Primarily because there seem to be no coherent arguments for deletion that I can see.  Dr Neuling's threats demonstrate both ignorance of Wikipedia and of NPOV.  The also flout Wikipedia guidelines for discussion. The idea that Wikipedia should adopt editorial policy to satisy donors is offensive to all who have made Wikipedia what it is today.   I also note there has been substantive deletion from the original article over the last few days and would ask that these deletions be considered for reinstantement.  It is difficult to work out whether Doctor Neuling is attempting to publicise the article virally or to censor it but the strenuous and orchestrated mobbing attempts to remove it through repetitious and vacuous "argument" would seem a very good reason to not only keep the article but to protect it. I would also like to praise all the admin involved for their admirably calm responses.  Thank you LookingGlass (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete* [I am stating delete but perhaps this should be "amend". I think the article is dodgy in that normally when I l0g on to a site there is a lot less overt promotion.  If there are concenrs why not have the entry re-written and have a wider inclusion?  For example include other Media Temple companies - which is why I presume there is a debate.JulietCSLC (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC) ]
 * It would be helpful to understand what you consider "overt promotion". The article two days ago had far more content, and a great deal of that concerned problems the company had had with its technology.  You should refer to the Wikipedia criteria on article writing for companies.  Basically reasons for inclusion are notability (for instance being written about on several occassions by third partes not blogs etc) and that the articles on companies should not be written by someone connected with the company to ensure no conflicts of interest and a NPOV.  All of these criteria have been met in the article.  If someone wants to write another article about another Media Tenple which satisfies these same criteria they can do so. It is really had to see what the point of this debate is. LookingGlass (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a reasonably substantial aricle by Hewlett packard about Media Temple that can be viewed at http://h71028.www7.hp.com/enterprise/downloads/MediaTemple_CaseStudy.pdf or on the HP site at http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2002/020814a.html  I'm able to fnd quie a lot of information on them and they seem noteworthy if you're interested in the technical aaspecs of web hosting http://www.tuaw.com/2008/06/17/media-temple-launches-beta-for-vps-running-on-leopard-server/ In case someone's going to expand the article. LookingGlass (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not an "article", that is a case study produced for the purposes of advertising. It does not come close to meeting Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines. — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  22:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, HP does that for everybody which uses their servers. It has nothing to do with the importance or notability of a partner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.93.8 (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with lookingglass that there are no real reasons for deletion. i also believe it should be expanded. Fatmanandlittleboy (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Fatmanandlittleboy


 * Though I strenuously object to the blitheringly obvious meatpuppetry going on in here, I searched several databases and could only find a single reliable source (the Mar08 Inc. article cited in the article), and Media Temple is a one-off mention in the article. I must conclude that the article, at this time, does not meet WP:CORP.  Delete.  — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  22:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all sources self-published (or not RS -- Hewlett Pakard press release "announcing" that Media Temple wisely choose to buy things from Hewlett Packard?). Clear fail on CORP. Wikipedia is not advertising, and this should be kicked to the curb accordingly.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC):
 * cmt just realized i'm about the only delete who isn't a sock puppet (maybe one or two others). Well, i stand by my reasoning, but it makes me feel icky.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm the other one I think, and I still stand by my deletion rationale, even if it's not a speedy as noted above (yes, I did not look at the logs). That being said, I do not appreciate the sock/meat puppetry as well as legal threat going on here. MuZemike 23:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither of you need worry, you are not being lumped in with the other deletes - at least not by me, and I presume not by anyone else. Although I can understand, and offer sympathy for, the "icky" factor. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Zetawoof, et al. Company seems notable enough. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Have you checked this company's history, credentials and claims? Theyclaim to have invented technology "Grid Hosting," that has been aroundfor many years. If one were to do their research, they would find thatmany of the stats describing revenue, employees, etc. are notaccurate. What goes around comes around. I believe that when people donot come from a space of integrity, transparency and truth in businessand life it comes back to them 100 fold. If not here then fromsomewhere else. This is not a comment against Wikipedia but thecompany in question. Wikipedia is an amazing source of information andan incredible community platform. I actually have a voice here! Thanksfor the opportunity to share my perspective.Illwill1k77 (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC) — Illwill1k77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment I have the same negative impression of this company, that it conducts business dishonestly. But it clearly meets wikipedia's notability guidelines.  Your arguments are not arguments to delete--rather, they seem to point to the fact that an article on this company should exist and should cover the negatives.  As the two links I provided show, this company has received fairly extensive negative attention in reliable, independent sources.  Go on google news and you will find more.  This company is not well-liked.  A good article will be transparent, and will reflect this.  Cazort (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment to comment - just look at the Revision as of 13:22, 5 August 2008 of the article. The company had only 25 employees and a revenue of about $3.500.000. The company startet in 1999 with maybe 2 persons and maybe hat 25 employees at the ed of 2008 (almost 10 years to grow so). Now, 3 month later, they pretend to have 84 employees and a renenue of about $14.000.000. Isn't that a giant leap for media temple? but still a small step for mankind!97.93.93.8 (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Having little revenue or few employees is not an argument that the company is not notable. I argued above that it is notable becasue it has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources is.  This is the essence of WP:N, the general notability guideline.  Cazort (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * -Your stance is correct on that ground. Little revenue or few employees is not an argument that the company is not notable according to the Wikipedia guidelines. It does, however, say a lot about the character, credibility and soundness of the organization. On dictionary.com the definition of notable is a person or company of prominence and distinction, noteworthy---a leading light. Little revenue and a few employees is not notable, especially if the statistics have been exaggerated by the company itself to make them look like something they are not. I'm sure you would agree that that is not noteworthy either. I am aware of the notability guidelines outlined by Wikipedia and they don't touch on any of these areas, which is unfortunate. But I would like to make another argument based on the guidelines presented. Wikipedia notability notes state that - "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published "non-trivial" works of their own that focus upon it." - "...Even non-promotional self-published sources are still not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has recieved by the world at large." - "Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large." The coverage this company has received from third party resources is evident but not substantial enough to be considered notable by the Wikipedia standard. Third party resources are non-trivial and non-substantial. See Notability Notes section #2 and #5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.93.8 (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with you that, in the case of this company, any self-published information coming from the company is not reliable and should not be considered in this notability discussion. I disagree though with your second point, in that I think though that there's more than enough coverage in more reliable sources here.  Cazort (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep A quick look around found mentions of the company in Wired, Inc., InfoWorld, and ComputerWorld. Sounds like they meet WP:CORP to me. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 23:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * comment After a deeper look, all given links are blog entries or self advertising. Does not sound like they meet WP:CORP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.94.16 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 26 March 2009 97.93.94.16 (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * reply: Oooh, nice attempt at trying to make it look like I was reversing my !vote, but sorry. I've added the unsigned tag to your comment to show that I wasn't the one who wrote that. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 01:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * reply to reply: you are not permitted to make modification to my comments, thats why I deleted your "unsigned" tag. I do not have to rely on shady tactics to get my point across. 97.93.94.16 (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * DoriSmith is permitted to modify a comment by adding the identity (in this case an IP address) of the editor who made it. Whether intentionally or not, your comment after DoriSmith's looked as if it was from him/her, and that s/he had changed their mind from keep to delete. All DoriSmith did was clarify that issue. Euryalus (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As Euryalus said, It's absolutely allowed to append signature information to the end of an unsigned comment (note: that's append, not modify). It's particularly useful to see not just who wrote it, but when they wrote it. And in this case, I've added it back in so that anyone reading this can see when it was written. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 20:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Now, regarding your blanket statement: none of those articles appear to be advertising (imo). The one from InfoWorld does sound as if it was taken from a press release, but as it has a byline of an InfoWorld writer, that means it at least passed editorial checking. The Wired and Inc articles are straightforward news pieces. And while the ComputerWorld article is a blog, it's a blog from a reliable source, so that makes it reliable as well (per this page). It absolutely meets CORP. And please don't mess around any more trying to make it look like I've changed my opinion. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 01:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * comment: unencyclopedic A quick look and you will find out that the article is .97.93.94.16 (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * reply: I don't know what this is in response to, but if an article isn't encyclopedic, that's not a reason for deletion, that's a reason for it to be cleaned up. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 01:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * comment: if an article is unencyclopedic, that means it is not worth to be in thisencyclopedia.97.93.94.16 (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, we already know that you think this article is "unencyclopedic" (e.g, it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia). That isn't an adequate reason on its own, though. See Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 19:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm just fascinated by the way all these sockpuppets and meatpuppets are doing everything incorrectly, to the point where I'm wondering if it's actually reverse psychology. Are they actually from (mt) and just faking a half-assed attempt to get rid of their article? If so, they're doing a great job! (the lengths I go to try to WP:AGF...) Dori (Talk • Contribs) 20:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.