Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 15

Category:Converts from Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

This seems to be a WP:CSD G4, recreation of previously deleted material from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 19#Category:People who have renounced Judaism. The discussion was closed as no consensus. The closing admin feels that this category is different enough from the original to preclude the application of a speedy delete. I disagree, and we agreed that bringing it here for a discussion would be the logical next step. Note: as the discussion was closed as "no consensus," there should be nothing here that would restrict anyone's ability to relist the article. Thank you. Avi 18:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete as a speedy (G4) Converts from vs. renounce does not seem to be a distinct enough difference. The only non-intersection would be atheists/agnostics who were once Jewish, and I do not feel that is a sufficient and notable enough differentiation from the previous category to warrant the non-application of CSD:G4. -- Avi 18:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It was specifically the term "denounced" (being a negative term) that got the previous category deleted. This category has no such negative conitations, it is a neutral and unbiased category of people who moved from adherence to one religion, to adherence to another. It is in-line with all of the sub-categories of Category:People by former religion and Category:Religious converts. It should be renamed to Category:Former adherents of Judaism as discussed on the CfD, not deleted. —gorgan_almighty 11:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Renounced" <> "denounced". . Renounced is not disparative; it means a refusal to further accept a position or an authority. -- Avi 16:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse self. I personally thought that conversion from a religion isn't terribly notable, and wouldn't have shed a tear if this was deleted, but that was just my opinion, which I didn't voice during the discussion. When reading through the arguments, there was not even a majority opinion on what to do, and nobody seemed to have a stronger argument than any other. People knew about the "People who have renounced" CFD, and nobody seemed particularly inclined to call for a speedy of this based on that CFD. I'd be ok with a relisting if that's what's called for here, if only to get more people to participate, otherwise things aren't going to collapse if this sits around for a few months. --Kbdank71 18:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Kbdank71 without prejudice to relisting for further discussion. The differences are suttle, but I think they're enough to discount WP:CSD#G4. The major argument in the previous CfD seems to have been that the ambiguity of "renouncing Judaism" forces original research. The argument looses some of its strength when "renounce" changes to "convert from." There are still some very small ambiguities, but much less so. Given the lack of attention the CfD received, though, I'd be happy with it being reopened or relisted. — xDanielx ^T/_C 18:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete as a speedy (G4). Too similiar. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete, because the earlier debate that resulted in deletion had a lot of participation, and the recent debate that had no consensus did not. Hence I do not believe that the latter meaningfully supersedes the former. >Radiant< 08:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - the idea of G4 is that "if an article/template/etc. is very similar to another article/template/etc. that has already undergone a deletion discussion and been deleted as a result, we can assume that another deletion discussion would give the same result". But obviously, in this case, the 2nd deletion discussion actually gave a different result and thus G4 no longer applies. ugen64 09:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please compare the number of participants in the first debate (approx 17) with the number of participants in the second (a total of 4). >Radiant< 10:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. Like Avi, I see this as a case for CSD G4. I also agree with Radiant's point regarding degree of participation. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Radiant!'s argument amounts to a complete reversal of WP deletion policy. There might be something to it--if applied to repeated AfDs where the !votes are for deletion, but there have been previous AfDs with large number of keeps, it would result in a keep result. It's also been suggested that evaluation of repeated AfDs should take account of the cumulative !votes. Interesting ideas, but need more discussion elsewhere. More precisely, Radiant!'s argument is to redefine "no consensus'. At present it is defined as keep, but no deterrent to another AfD. Changing this definition requires community consensus, and not just here. DGG (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, DGG, I think the deeper issue was not closing it as a speedy in the first place. The categories are extremely similar, and, as I mention above, the only logical area I can think of without complete overlap are atheists/agnostics who were once practicing religious Jews. Is this such a significant percentage of Jews who have left practicing Judaism that it merits a category on its own? The concept of the G4 is just as much policy as the definition of no consensus, and here the argument is that the no consensus is flawed and against policy, notwithstanding other arguments. -- Avi 16:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: G4 provides for deletion of copies "substantially identical to the deleted version". If, as you say, the categories are extremely similar except for atheists and agnostics, how can you say this qualifies as G4? --Kbdank71 18:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Endorse" at this point is, I think, supporting the category . The basis of the requested review is that G4 applies, because the no-consensus close should not be interpreted as keep, and the earlier delete result on a similarly named category is applicable. I am saying that the no-consensus close means no consensus to delete, and defaults to a keep, and that G4 is therefore inapplicable and against policy. So much for the technicalities. As for the underlying issue, atheists may consider themselves former Jews, but Judaism normally considers any Jew no matter how outrageously non-religious to be a Jew unless they join another religion. This category thus makes more sense than the previous one, because it may be difficult to determine who is an atheist, but formally joining another religion is an objective characteristic. I didnt participate in the previous CfD but if it is challenged again, I will in the next.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 14:42, August 16, 2007

• Endorse. As the creator of the category, I stated my rationale very clearly on the CfD. The CfD nominator agreed with most of my points, and I compromised on his remaining points. I don't know why the CfD was closed as No consensus. If you actually read it, the consensus is quite clearly Keep and rename. All I can guess is that the CfD was closed by simply counting the number of bold Keep/Delete bullet points. Not a very good way of closing a CfD, although I do assume good faith. The consensus was clearly Keep and rename, for reasons stated in the CfD (not repeated here). —gorgan_almighty 09:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Names of Omagh Bomb Victims (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The result should have been Merge with main article. The result of the debate was simply not Delete. User:Neil's (See Neil's talk page ... of DOOM - Omagh bombing #List of names)interpretation of decision was to close down the debate using WP:NOT – This was not alluded to by anyone and remains hotly debated as to its correct interpretationWikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Memorial guideline Aatomic1 16:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and merge into main Omagh Bombing article. Although I appreciate the validity of the closing admin's rationale, s/he clearly ignored consensus (or the lack thereof) and closed according to his/her own opinion. A merge would have been the best compromise closure of this AfD; there certainly isn't a need for a simple list of bomb victims (which does indeed contravene WP:NOT a memorial, unless the victims are notable in themselves), but the information would be entirely appropriate in the main article. Walton^One 16:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and merge into main Omagh Bombing article. There was absolutely no consensus for deletion. It will then be up to the editors of the Omagh Bombing article, whether they want the names in there, as an editorial matter. Bridgeplayer 17:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Clarification comment Neil was Proto at the time the AFD closed. GRBerry 17:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse If it was sourced, merging would be a good idea. But, unfortunately, there isn't a source in sight. Some information on the victims may belong in the main article, but it should be sourced before it goes there. So merging isn't a good idea without the sourcing. The WP:NOT reason for not having an article is compelling, given the state of Talk:Omagh bombing/names; which might even merit BLP deletion given the privacy invading statements about people then living. GRBerry 17:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I promise I will only add a fully referenced namesAatomic1 17:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion The list of names add nothing to the article.--padraig 17:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion per WP:NOT, the article is not an indiciscrimate collection of information. --Domer48 17:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. A breakdown of deaths by nationality is fine, a mention of any notable victims is fine, but a plain listing of names (especially one that contains details like "had gone into the town that day with a friend to buy a pair of jeans") is not needed. A stronger case for merging could have been made if the article was sourced ... however, an admin is not obligated to merge unsourced content that goes against WP:NOT. Also delete Talk:Omagh bombing/names (per a mix of CSD G4, CSD G6, WP:BLP, and this DRV). There is no reason it should exist and it could potentially be libelous (it's unsourced, so we don't know that the people on the list are actually dead). — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, Wikipedia is not a memorial, nor is it a directory. Names add nothing to articles like this, and the list was blatant OR (which was not brought up in the AFD). I have gone ahead and moved the subpage back to its original space and speedied it under G4 and G6. --Coredesat 18:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn I would have said delete at the AfD, but this is not AfD round two. In addition to the nom, two people spoke for deletion: One said merely "I don't think this should exist as it's own article. I'm not sure if ot would be worthy of inclusion in the main Omagh Bombing article though " without giving any reason, and the other said " Yes, that's precisely what i was going to say..." The nom had said "WikiP' is not an indiscriminate collection of information, this article clearly is. " which isn't much of an argument either, as this list, however misguided, was not indiscriminate. The closer wasn't much more specific. The reason we have admins close is to evaluate the arguments, and if there aren't any good ones, the discussion should be continued. Admins who wish to present arguments should present arguments like everyone else, and let someone else close. DGG (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Humm. I'm not sure merging is appropriate, as there doesn't seem to be any consensus to merge, either. Much as I agree with the deletion of this article there just wasn't any consensus to delete it. It should be overturned and kept as no consensus or relisted to get some more discussion. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 21:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and merge into main Omagh Bombing article - WP:MEMORIAL here, though the information within is encyclopedic and should be merged into the main article - Alison ☺ 22:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion - a list of names and ages is purely memorial and adds nothing encyclopedic to the article. If there was information about how each of the individuals died then that would be encyclopedic but a list is not.--Vintagekits 22:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and merge per nom. I would have expected this to be closed as keep, looking at the vote count and considering that the deletion arguments were "I don't think this should exist as it's own article" and "Yeah, what he said." I would go with merge since 2-3 editors expressed that view and nobody objected ... and it makes perfect sense, since (from what I read, not being able to view the article) it sounds like there were only a small number of names that merited inclusion anyway. I see no problem with splitting off the list if it grows large, as the AfD seems to support doing so. — xDanielx ^T/_C 23:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as closer, wow, this was a long time ago. Given the information was already put at Talk:Omagh bombing/names (its subsequent deletion - not my concern), I'm not sure why this article needs to be restored, at all. The information from it is already available in multiple locations, and overturning it seems pointless, given it was entirely unreferenced, and no particularly useful content exists in it. However. If this is undeleted, merged to Omagh bombing, and left as a protected redirect, no problem. If it is not merged, it should not exist, even as a redirect. Neil ム 08:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL BigDunc 12:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and merge. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL does not apply as the information is encyclopedic and in no way serves as a memorial. (Concern noted on lack of reference - easily addressed, there is already an external link on the main Omagh bombing page to a reputable source). Such information is included in many similar articles not relating to Ireland, Northern Ireland or Britain. The names of the dead, their ages, and places of origin (Spanish and Republic of Ireland citizens killed in addition to those from NI) are most relevant. It must be noted that many of those endorsing deletion are members of WP:IRA and have a record of removing and opposing the inclusion of any material that could be perceived as negative to any of the various republican paramilitary/terrorist organisations - while at the same time supporting inclusion of similar material negative to the British in other articles (e.g. Bloody Sunday (1972). Those would be User:BigDunc, User:Vintagekits, User:Domer48 and User:Padraig. (Expecting another one or two along any minute...). Personally, I'm an inclusionist and would like to see the names of the dead included in the above two articles, Birmingham pub bombings and Dublin and Monaghan bombings. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 17:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not a member of WP:IRA so I don't know where you get that impression from and my reasons for not including simple lists of names in these type of article is that it adds nothing of encyclopedic value to the articles, all these people died in one event in this case an explosion, not in different related incidents where a discription of their deaths would provide a timeline of events to what occured.--padraig 19:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} having pointed out to you already talk page guidelines, [1] , you have decided to ignore my advice. I would now like to point out to you words to avoid, in you attempt to create straw man arguments, while engaging in ad hominemattacks on editors. Now you either back up your claim and prove them, or stop with your nonsense.--Domer48 13:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User talk:Vintagekits#Blocked(indefinitely) for threatening administrators?. Please consider Domer48 and padraig support of VK's actions at User talk:Vintagekits#Should the community waste any more time with Vintagekits?. Aatomic1 06:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and merge into main Omagh Bombing article as per nom, preceding comment (by Bastun) and WP:NOT#ADVOCATE & WP:NOTPAPER - provided no such merged list exceeds 10% of the character count of the merged article. Concur with closer User:Neil's comments above, since, without context, the list of victims is not sufficiently encyclopaedic and that was, of itself, the ulterior motivation for its original hiving off. W. Frank talk ✉  19:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse deletion, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Why not list all of the people who died on 9/11? All of the people who died in the I35W bridge collapse? All of the people who were killed in the Peru earthquake? Corvus cornix 21:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This point was discussed in this AfD[2]Aatomic1 08:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and merge into main Omagh Bombing article. From what I read some people had interpreted "delete and merge" as "delete" --Dumbo1 12:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Nobody wanting to keep the article refuted the argument based in policy, that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which "had gone into the town that day with a friend to buy a pair of jeans" is. Merging the content would be just as bad, the content would still be indisciminate. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY apply equally as well. User:Bastun changes his view about memorials when it suits him, as [3] and [4] show. Brixton Busters 14:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle_Frontier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

As I understand, several pages on this topic have been created in the past and have subsequently gone to AfD and been speedy deleted. I understand, as stated in WP:CSD that recreation of deleted material is also criteria for sppedy deletion, however the new article adresses the issue as stated below. As stated in WP:CSD, the article is not an exact copy of the exact article and does not match the criteria. The reasons for the previous Battle Frontier article being deleted, as stated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle Frontier states the reason for the previous articles deletion was due to the fact that it failed to meet the criteria of verifiability and no original research, and contained no reliable sources. However, overall, while the article was deleted, many people agree that a BF aricle is still necessary due to the fact that it is actually a region on its own like Hoenn (also having its own respective season in the TV series) and is highly relevant to the Emerald video game (however there is so much information about it that it may not be able to be merged into the article on Emerald). Eternal dragon 08:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Just take it to afd-- there is nothing here to review. DGG (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmm. I think the nominator is asking for a preemptive review against G4. We don't do preemptive reviews, so speedy close. GRBerry 21:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sundown and/or Last Stand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

no time or option to adapt the content given before deletion Sevenmish 02:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Would more time have mattered? I mean, could this band meet WP:MUSIC? If not, undeleting is pointless. --W.marsh 02:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe so, do you suggest I compile the complete article outside of wikipedia and post it as a whole. I am new to this process and may not have gone about it in the same way others do or in the right way...I dont know...I have gone into a lot more detail with the editor who deleted me as I had on the talk page that used to be here...there was no mention of WP:MUSIC in that discussion or in the deletion warning
  • I will refer to the criteria mentioned

  -the musician has created soundtrack for an award winning film

  -is a very prominent representative of a style in this city (the process through which he produces music is one utilised by only a few in the world)

  -was part of a Noise TV recording of the Maitreya Festival

  -the Musician has won in big music comp with his last band

  -Most importantly, I feel, though it is not included in the criteria, this band is an important contributor to a prominent art community, one that is identified as such in this country and internationally. I have included the article about Sundown and/or Last Stand as part of my attempt to document the uniqueness and significance of the Darebin community in international arts circles Sevenmish 03:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, there was no mention in the article of any of the above points, that's for sure. Any article that says the band has only one official member and tells us it is "so unique as to be almost indescribable" is not going to survive. Still, as this was a speedy someone can undelete it if they feel it's useful; personally I'm not inclined to. Splash - tk 08:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• In two hours not a single assertion of notability made it in, nor a single source. The band has only one member, so it is essentially an unsourced article about a living person that contains no assertion of notability. Endorse deletion, without prejudice against creation of a sourced article that asserts notability. The nomination isn't sourced either, so don't take action now. GRBerry 21:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• i can see everyones point here....should i wait to get all the info and complete the article and then give it another go at posting? am i allowed to repost? is it possible to retrieve what i did post (it took me ages to figure out what i was doing and i'd like to build on what i have already done instead of starting from scratch again)...i was doing it as i researched it so was only putting in info that i knew off the top of my head, i didn't want to just say stuff without dates and all the technical info to go with it...i just felt that i had little opportunity to do this as it was deleted after its first day up, i felt a little put out.

Sevenmish 00:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion The article clearly met CSD A7. My advice to Sevenmish is that he should begin a new draft in his userspace. Xoloz 14:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dove project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

When I was for adding content yesterday to the article Dove Project, I saw in the talk page that Jennylen provided proof that referencial material was soon to be posted. I also saw a reply from Peter Rehse that he should post in the deletion discussion that a reasonable wait was adviced based on the notification from Jennylen. I went today to the Dove Project article to insert periodical citations and journal references which may support the notability of the article, founding the article deleted. I have examined carefully the deletion discussion of that article and I observe that PeterRehse never posted such message, all by the contrary, the only position there is to urge for deletion. Please someone clarify this situation. Librarian2 09:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify I suggested that Jennylen post the information in the AFD debate. Since it was her article she should defend it. I only provided advice which was not followed.Peter Rehse 10:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw the message, the "I would" made the erroneous assumption, sorry about that. I anyway think that someone was too much in a hurry to delete the article but what's done is done, shame though, its an area with too many charlatans for letting a good scientific reference to be lost.Librarian2 10:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is probably the reason it was flagged so quick and why it is so important to provide the sources. Please let me know when it is up and running again with references.Peter Rehse 11:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's see the sources from the last state of the article, " its existence is worth to be noted at the light of recent discoveries in Quantum field theory which seem to provide ground for looking further into the possibility of an L-field of the human body, subject on which the independent researches of Rupert Sheldrake, Robert Becker, The Body Electric and of David Bohm have shown interdisciplinary supportive conclusions." If these are the references referred to, i dont see how they will necessarily support the notability of this earlier hypothesis. DGG (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Here is the complete citation to all sources and external links: "". That right, there were no sources or external links. Endorse deletion as the AFD consensus is obvious and, assuming solely for the purpose of discussion that the topic merits an article, it needs to be a sourced article. GRBerry 21:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion view - the project existed as shown by the 2nd and 3rd references here. However, the main reference costs $25 to read which I am disinclined to pay! Of course, existence is not equivalent to notability. Though the AfD consensus was clear, it was predicated on the lack of sources. If Librarian2 can produce sources to underpin notability then recreation should be permitted but for now it stays out. Bridgeplayer 23:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fair judgement in general. The Project existed and it was reference to other projects in Quantum Biology but was lacking references and citations so I was asked to find. I will ellaborate on that and if can be fairly refrenced and engage other notability articles then I will advise to put it again and if not I will advice the contributor to give up Librarian2 16:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crimson_Editor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AFD2)

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

The result of the debate was Keep. So why was the article deleted anyway against community concesus? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.44.43.189 (talk)

• The result of the second AFD was delete. GRBerry 14:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist There were two contributors to the 2nd afd, both of whom said weak delete. The closing admin then made a argument for deletion, evaluating the article more carefully than the two contributors did. He's not supposed to close based on his own arguments, but on evaluating the others. He would have done much better to contribute to the debate, and let someone else close. None of the participants in the first afd contributed to the second, and apparently they were not notified. They should have been. That way there might have been a real discussion in the first place. Personally, I have no opinion on the merits. DGG (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello DGG. I think you've misread the nomination as being part of the close (shows up weird if you mouseover the link in the box to the right). In fact, the closer said only "The result was delete". Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist view. This is an advanced text editor, a far more powerful tool than Notepad, aimed at programers. The article is not in the cache so I can't see if it is spammy but in any case that can be cleaned up. Across the two AfDs there was no overall consensus for deletion. Sourcing was the issue and that is readily fixed. Please see this comprehensive review here. There are other, less comprehensive reviews here and here.It should be noted that this is Freeware so the reviewing sites have no interest in bulling it up. If someone will userfy to me I'll add the refs. Bridgeplayer 00:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and keep This editor is a well known free text editor in the programming community. There are of course many text editors, so not everyone knows of it, but it is still a notable entry.Rcrossvs 07:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Relist. The 2nd AfD was closed after only two comments, both saying "Weak Delete". Instead of being closed, the AfD should have been Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.—gorgan_almighty 12:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have produced a new version at User:Bridgeplayer/Crimson Editor. I should be obliged, if this is relisted, if this version can be moved across first. Bridgeplayer 19:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist per gorgan_almighty. Crimson Editor is very well known and widely used in the programming community. Bridgeplayer's user space version contains several examples of decent third-party references. — xDanielx ^T/_C 21:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]