Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupy Marines


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  03:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Marines

 * – ( View AfD View log )

For notability reasons, I'm proposing this article for deletion. The news coverage is anecdotal and is mainly about their facebook page. I feel like this is highly promotional and this group doesn't really do anything. 완젬스 (talk) 11:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep/undecided. I'm sort of ambivalent about the material. I can definitely see where you're coming from, but I think it'd be a little hasty to completely delete this. WP:CRYSTAL works both ways- we don't know if it'll become more notable and get more sources, but then we can't know that it won't since it's still relatively new. If it is deleted then it might be worth userfying the material as well as redirecting the term to OWS, to be separated once the editor has more sources. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 *  Keep . I see no cogent argument for the deletion of an article explaining the factual existence of a organization that indubitably exists. It has an active following close to 20,000 individual people and is not of negligible size which is the ONLY cogent argument against this articles existence. Worries about it being used for advertising purposes can be mitigated, precluding deletion as a reasonable option. --98.222.56.230 (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I 'follow' Occupy Marines on Twitter, and have become better informed for it. There is no good reason to delete their Wikipedia page. Patriotism should be lauded. Not scrutinized to the point of tedium. — 66.245.255.96 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 09:25, 24 November 2011‎ (UTC).


 * OccupyMarines has been more effective with organization within the movement than the original OWS core that originally began the movement in Manhattan, New York. The groups was instrumental in the identification of the ESU Scott Bergstresser, the officer responsible for shooting Veteran Scott Olsen and throwing a grenade into a group of seven to 10 demonstrators in Oakland, California. This group has worked with 'occupy' groups in organization, especially in networking with other 'occupy' groups nationwide. The group is responsible for organizing, implementing, and guiding the development of other 'occupy' military groups such as Army, Navy, and Air force. The groups holds facebook and twitter accounts, and maintains a website that engages the movement offering inspiration, information regarding national/international politics, information on other events occurring within occupy groups across America and internationally which are largely invisible considering the heavily censored mainstream media such as Fox News and CNN. Those ignorant to what the group as actually accomplished within such short period of time should refrain from using big words and spend more time actually becoming well informed. This site should honor the response and the sacrifice the group has endured throughout the movement and its development. This site should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OccupyMARINES (talk • contribs) 10:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)  — OccupyMARINES (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * We were asked today by a Naysayer to explain what OccupyMARINES are doing for OWS. We replied with a more accurate question to ask is what OccupyMARINES are not doing. OccupyMARINES are not sitting on our asses watching the 1% rip out the heart of America.America Dialed 911 and We Stood Up, We Answered America’s Call.We Have watched since September 17th this wondrous event unfold. We watched as this small demonstration took hold of the world and we quickly understood that they are not going away. So we listened more.We listened to the demonstrators, we listened to the public respond and observed how quickly divided Americans’ were becoming. How these knucklehead Naysayers, day after day discredit what OWS is doing. Well Nay-Sayers OccupyMARINES have a message for you. Continue sitting on your asses while the 1% laugh at you, lie to you, tell you to shut your soup coolers and mind your own business. Go ahead and quibble Naysayers while MARINES once again stand up for the future of America. And when the day comes, when OWS hits history books across the world, and we alongside them; that day when someone asks you if you were there Nay-Sayers you are going to say: “No, I was to scared, I did not have the balls to fight for my country. I did not have the courage to confront the problems eroding America.”“But I did feel confident enough to attack those brave souls that did stand up for America. I did fight to disregard their message.” Tell Them that when asked Naysayers, afterwards, return to your life remembering that you are insignificant to history. Do not worry Naysayers, the MARINES have your back….AGAIN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OccupyMARINES (talk • contribs) 11:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)  — OccupyMARINES (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Undecided for the moment -- Keep. This article needs more names.  Right now, it looks like a couple of former Marines (or two of the rare "ex-Marines") with a web page and facebook and twitter accounts.  One of them left with an administrative discharge.  The other is suspected of embellishing his military record to imply he had seen combat.  That doesn't mean it's not notable, but we need more names for this to qualify as notable. -- Randy2063 (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)  Amended to Keep.  Still has the same issues but some people like it.  We can revisit if nothing comes of the group. -- Randy2063 (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - here's two more sources than already in article (I just saw a live video feed interview with them with international audience asking questions, myself from UK, and I wanted to find out more about them) http://www.businessinsider.com/occupy-marines-shamar-thomas-2011-10 and http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/usa-war-on-terror/882-us-marine-rages-at-police-brutality-against-occupy-wall-street-protesters -- EverSince (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that they have 501(c)(3) status helps but it's still just the same two guys. Stopwar.co.uk isn't exactly a neutral source -- but they're not really against the war either (they're just on the other side).  I'll stay undecided for now.  -- Randy2063 (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure what the purpose of your comment on my statement is, or the relevance for notability of whether a publication is itself neutral, or the strange comment about some org being 'on the other side'... EverSince (talk) 00:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There were two points: 1) not every 501(c)(3) is notable; and 2) stopwar.co.uk's admiration doesn't make them notable.  It still comes down to the nature of it.  Here's what's required: WP:ORG.  Is this more than than just two guys with a website? -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes your first point does not relate to my statement so please add it to your own if you want. Regarding 2), please keep your personal political views to yourself and focus on the process of evaluating sources to establish notability of coverage as outlined also in Notability which I did not need reminding of thank you. EverSince (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My personal views don't affect whether or not I think something is notable.
 * It still comes down to my question: Is this more than than just two guys with a website?  -- Randy2063 (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly so you shouldn't have disrupted my statement with your political opinions and your personal framing of the issue (which is actually about the extent and nature of independent coverage) EverSince (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Such as also http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-20124777/semper-fi-non-active-marines-called-to-occupy/ EverSince (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a good source of the same singular event but that's still just one of the same two guys running a website. -- Randy2063 (talk) 06:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No you misrepresent the article - as can be seen it describes an event involving a marine but then moves on to "The group Occupy Marines says...". Again stop trying to reframe my statement as if the issue is about the number of people comprising OccupyMarines - that is relevant to the description that should be given in the article, not whether the article should exist which is dependent on the extent and (procedural-) quality of publications covering it (notability). EverSince (talk) 12:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Btw it appears that the OccupyMarines user account has been indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia apparently because the name is "related to a "real-world" group or organization" EverSince (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - This sort of coverage, and that in the article and linked above, confirms to me that this is a notable and historically significant aspect of Occupy, and that to not properly cover it in WP would leave our treatment of this very important movement lacking. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's hard to say if this one passes GNG or not. The sources aren't the best (I don't think dailykos passes WP:RS), and it's non-active duty with a facebook page. On the other hand, some facebook movements become notable, and this one may also grow. FWIW I don't see any reason to delete it yet. Eventually the occupy movement will simmer down, and if this group hasn't done anything, they can revisit AFD. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Why delete this? - this group is real. They have built a following, and are continuing to build.  What could the person requesting this article deletion possibly be afraid of?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.224.186.55 (talk) 06:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC) — 207.224.186.55 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Every redneck city has a Chamber of Commerce authored booster page on WP and no complaints.  WP is about marketing capitalist crap.  It cannot handle sensitive issues of political importance.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.68.133.69 (talk) 07:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC) — 74.68.133.69 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I read the article about Occupy Marines on businessinsider.com, which i found both informative and intriguing. Soon after I started following the group on Facebook and Twitter, and I've found Occupy Marines to be one of the best sources for info on the Occupy movement. I'm shocked by the amount of info they disseminate on the subject (and I've never been a real fan of the Marines). — 184.152.73.246 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:33, 26 November 2011‎ (UTC).


 * I am a former Marine. I agree with the above posters that this page should not be deleted, for the same reasons, especially the amount of information Occupy Marines provides. NATruthStudent (talk) 08:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC) — NATruthStudent (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment. This AfD has nothing to do with silencing anyone or supporting any sort of regime. Lately there have been a lot of groups adding OWS themed pages to Wikipedia. Some have had enough coverage to warrant a page. Some have not. While I believe that OM could potentially get this and that it's a little too soon to delete the page, I do not believe that anyone nominated this in bad faith. Not everything is a conspiracy, so please do not throw about accusations along the lines of "what are they afraid of?". It does not accomplish anything, nor does it show proof as to why this page should remain. AfD do not work that way. Also, the argument "other stuff exists" does not count as an argument to keep the page. Saying that you find an article or page helpful does not count as a vote in its favor either. (See WP:ITSUSEFUL.) I do want to commend people for their passion about the subject, but also be aware that deletion discussions are not decided on a vote. Coming onto Wikipedia just to comment on this deletion discussion will not accomplish much unless you can back it up with valid reasons to keep it that are covered under the general notability guidelines. (WP:GNG) I've seen it happen where there's been more "keep" statements than "delete" ones, but an article was still deleted because the "keep" statements could not give valid reasons to keep the article. I'm not trying to be incendiary, just making sure that everyone coming on here knows how AfD works. I notice that there's a lot of new faces. Again, the proposed deletion of the page was not done to silence anyone and believe it or not, most of the OWS themed groups that have come up for deletion have actually survived the process because of people chipping in to prove notability enough to warrant saving it, so it's not like Wikipedia itself is trying to silence anyone or can't handle political events. Please be careful about how you phrase your arguments because just coming on and making statements like that will not accomplish anything as far as AfD goes. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Well regarding quality of arguments it's a shame you didn't intervene earlier to warn the editor above who was just throwing out his own political biases and judgements of the group while I was simply providing valid sources showing notability. Also if you actually look at the talk page of the editor who proposed deletion it does seem to show a gripe against Occupy so I'm not sure why you're so blindly defending Wikipedia procedures. EverSince (talk) 09:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely that the page SHOULD NOT be deleted. If Wikipedia wants to assure fair and equal distribution of informative and valid information, then leaving it up would do JUST that. If not for the OccupyMarines wikipedia page, THIS Iraq war veteran (serving 2 years in Baghdad and 6 months in Kandahar) would not have found information on fellow vets supporting the movement. IF this website wants to continue with a reputation of enlightening the masses then I would suggest you take a close look at how their support is growing through its FB page and thru a simple google of the Occupy Marines movement. Otherwise, you are all just as bad if not WORSE than the pathetic political leaders that are screwing you and all your future unborn childrens lives over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngryUScitizen76 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you would look above, you'd notice that I was the first to suggest that this should be kept. The problem with a lot of the OWS fringe pages is that there's been a rush to include every group that forms. While it's great that people are forming to voice their opinions, Wikipedia is not a soap box and in order to remain on here the page needs to have reliable sources. This is the way it's always been on Wikipedia and again, these policies have actually saved a good chunk of the more well sourced fringe OWS groups out there. (Like I said, many of the Occupy pages usually pass AfD because eventually people find sources.) Again, Wikipedia is not a soap box and it's not a place to advertise for various groups. I just wish that people would turn this energy out towards finding sources for this article. It is not a suppression of opinions, especially since the original article creator has the option to userfy the article, meaning that he or she could keep it on their user page and work on it until it has enough sources to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If one of the people coming on here to voice their opinion wants to do this in place of the article creator, I have no problem with that. The issue is that no matter how noble a group's intention are or how vocal its supporters are, it still has to follow the same notability guidelines that every other article has to pass to get an article on here. Much like OWS protesters say that certain groups don't deserve special treatment, we believe the same thing: no group should get special treatment and everyone should have to follow the rules of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

I feel that the protection of free speech and the political neutrality of WP is more important than the few bits this entry takes up. It could serve someone trying to research the Occupy movement and hurts no one. It's removal would be a disturbing sign that WP is engaging in political activity and suppression of opinions. I say keep it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.50.109.30 (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Somebody asked, "Why delete this?" It's a good question.  Look at the article itself.  There are only two names associated with it,  Scott Olsen and Shamar Thomas.  And yet this article doesn't even specifically say that they're members.  We can only infer that they are.  Somebody needs to clear that up ASAP.
 * There are plenty of organizations that don't get WP articles about them. I can think of one in particular that is also on WP's spam list, which means we can't even cite them as references or external links.
 * If you want to keep this article, and they're a noteworthy organization, then please put some of your efforts into turning the article itself into more than an advertisement for a fringe website that will be gone after the fringe moves on. Find sources that tell us who they actually are.
 * I'm still on the fence on this one. Who's their leader?  Who's their press secretary?  Who's their treasurer?  Got a legitimate source?  Then edit it into the article.  Get us some more names and I'll be more than satisfied.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Since some people here may be affiliated with the "organization" I'll note that it may be worthwhile putting some of the needed leadership information on the website, which might then be referenced.  It may not be sufficient for fully establishing noteworthiness but it will add to the material we have now.
 * At the moment, they appear to be anonymous. An anonymous blog can be noteworthy enough for an article, but not one that's only been around for a month, and probably won't make it through winter.  Be serious, folks.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Tokyogirl179, again, I ask why are you lecturing at those making a case for the article, and not advising those such as Randy2063 who is continually just throwing out personal judgements of the group and making characterizations of it that have nothing to do with the issue - which is whether the extent of coverage in reliable independent sources is enough to establish noteworthiness. Randy2063 please stay on topic instead of posting your own original research. EverSince (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Original research? I'm (a) citing their own website; and (b) asking that others find more sources about who these people are.  That's not a merely personal judgment.
 * This is an anonymous group that's had a website for a little over a month. That's observation, not a personal judgment.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The notability guideline is clear that the issue is whether the group has been noted and discussed by multiple independent secondary sources, several of which have now been provided ("Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability"). According to the guideline, their self-published material is potentially relevant for the article content after that. But your characterization of that has been shown to be unreliable anyway - you keep saying it's "just a website", which is inaccurate because there is also an associated facebook group (which the deletion proposal was complaining about along with the obviously prejudiced claim that "this group doesn't really do anything") plus a twitter feed and a petition aimed at various govt officials, and I don't know what other activities online or offline. And you kept saying it's just two guys but now you're complaining they're anonymous (like anonymous (group) in that respect then) but in either case the issue is independent secondary sources establishing notability as a group. EverSince (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, a website and a facebook page and a twitter account. I've already noted that.  Maybe they have their own stationery, too.
 * Yes, I did say it's just two guys but I thought they were willing to be known as affiliated with the "organization." They probably are the group but their website doesn't say that.
 * "Anonymous (group)" is not a 501(c)(3). "Occupy Marines" is.  They're not supposed to be anonymous.
 * After looking at WP:GNG, I think user:Cox wasan is right. But I'm really not asking for much.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Again you're distracting away from the issue of the demonstrated notability in multiple published national sources, to your speculation and denigration of the details of the group, which are matters for an article not a deletion proposal. So, great argument when it comes down to it - Cox wasan: 'fails notability for GNG' (no reason given & can't even be bothered to spell out the jargon for non-wikipedianites), Randy2063: 'I think Cox wasan is right'. EverSince (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * He's right. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail...  You do have some references but they don't tell us who these people are -- and I don't mean just their names.  This article isn't a stub anymore, and it still doesn't have much to say.  The "See also" section is almost half of it.
 * Once again, I'm not asking for much. I'd just like some hard information so that when Wikipedia is used as a link for 501(c)(3) fundraising appeals, the readers will have some names on record.  They've only had a domain name since October 19th.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Typical tactic of some Wikipedianites to cite policies to try and show they're talking from authority while simultaneously misrepresenting it for their own ends. The guideline does NOT specify what particular details have to be provided, it just says there has to be enough content to base a substantive amount of content on. And NOWHERE does it say anything about 501(c)(3) status needing to be discussed, you're simply making that up. Wikipedia is collaborative and not about you and what you would personally like others to find for you (see WP:OWN). EverSince (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. I didn't say 501(c)(3) status is needed.  If you'll recall, I had said that it helps here.  The source says they're working on it, which works in favor of a keep.  That's about the only thing they have going for them.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails notability for GNG. --Cox wasan (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's another independent published article, dated 11th November 2011 in The Nation periodical, http://www.thenation.com/article/164553/veterans-occupy-wall-street The relevant section: "Since then, the visibility of veterans and veteran organizations at Occupy events around the country has grown, becoming more persistent and evident to both protesters and organizers. After witnessing the police brutality in New York earlier this month, a group of veterans calling themselves Occupy Marines pledged its support to the Occupy Wall Street movement. “As veterans we were led to believe [that] our service was to protect America’s way of life abroad,” a spokesperson of the organization explains, “We did not want to believe that our presence in the Middle East was to ensure an oil supply, or to deepen the pockets of the financial elites. Many…lost their life out there, and the suggestion that their sacrifice was for profits, or oil, is unbearable. [That is why] we came forward to protect these demonstrators’ ability to express their constitutional First Amendment right.” EverSince (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a pledge of support but not news of what they've already done.
 * If they said that they have already been providing security (like the 501st Legion at SF conventions) then that would be something notable. There are better examples but I didn't want to venture into past history.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yet again please stop putting your interpretation of guidelines and sources over the top of everything. That is not how notability is defined in the guidelines. In any case it's not just a pledge of support it's detail on the rationale given by the group as reported in a national publication as you can well see yourself. EverSince (talk) 02:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability includes "significant coverage." Apparently, they've had enough significant coverage to write a tiny stub, most of which is a boastful mission statement apparently from their facebook page.
 * But since you obviously like it. I'm not going to vote it down.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record I said nothing about that either way. EverSince (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - This page contains factual information about what they have done, what they are doing, and what they intend to do. They are an organization worthy of a wiki entry. I believe the opposition to this entry is entirely due to a political dislike of the occupation movement itself. To delete this entry with such haste defeats the purpose of the wiki in the first place. Therefore I vote to keep the entry. Syrmopoulos (talk) 05:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of information. There is information about people, places and things. If OccupyMARINES exists there is a purpose for a page of any information on it. The early age of the entry would also bring to question the quickness on considering deletion since it has not had ample time to have more of the community enter date and facts onto it. Smegarock  —Preceding undated comment added 05:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC).


 * Keep - this online group emerged in the aftermath of Scott Olson being shot in the head with a tear gas cannister during an #OccupyWallStreet protest in Oakland. OccupyMarines has over 8,700 followers on Twitter. OccupyMarines exists as a legitimate entity despite 완젬스 feelings the group is 'highly promotional and this group doesn't really do anything'. Proper Disclosure: I follow @occupymarines on twitter. παράδοξος (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "Keep" - there is no reason to delete this page - I follow @occupymarines on Twitter as well - as I feel they provide necessary insight into news topics that are unfolding quicker than conventional media can follow. The opinions they express may be distasteful to some, but this is no reason to have their voice snuffed out here. To delete their entry would be a strike against the inclusive nature of Wikipedia. Signed missshevaughn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missshevaughn (talk • contribs) 06:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * comment I don't usually comment like this on other people's arguments, but all 4 of the immediately above arguments & some above are based on ITEXISTS, which is a non -argument,. The inclusive nature of wikipedia even as I would have it does not quite go so far as to include everything that exists in the universe  DGG ( talk ) 20:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Improving article - A number of editors have posted potential references on this discussion page. If these references say something not covered in the article and if they are reliable secondary sources (such as a newspaper, not a blog) then it would improve the article if the additional information and references were added to the article.  If an editor is new to Wikipedia and not quite sure how to add the information, then post your reference and basic points on the article's talk page Talk:Occupy_Marines.  Other more experienced editors will be happy to help out.--Nowa (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: The subject's notability is clear (references speak for themselves), the "promotional" or not-neutral article's tone could be settled through regular editing.--Cavarrone (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: From a mere user, one small comment: I came to this page to learn something about OccupyMarines. And I did.  I'd been reading their Facebook posts for a couple weeks, and once I get interested in something I usually look it up in wikipedia.  The astonishing breadth of wikipedia is what makes it such a frequent destination for me.  BTW, I'm ignorant of wikipedia deletion policies, but I hope they are strongly biased toward maintaining the broadest of historical records - if wikipedia doesn't, who will? Rad314 (talk) 09:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: The notability of Occupy Marines is clear. If the page has room for improvement, well that's how Wikipedia pages evolve.  There is no legitimate basis to suggest removal. Holzman-Tweed (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep They are a real thing, they get coverage, and are thus notable.  D r e a m Focus  23:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It does seem to be a real existing thing, with sufficient coverage to easilly pass GNG. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2011 (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.