Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick.net

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Keep arguments are unconvincing in the face of almost every source in the article talking about the site's creator and not the site. I'd suggest that there's reasonably good footing for a Patrick Killelea article, and Patrick.net can redirect to there uncontroversially. As such, I won't personally salt here. A Traintalk 12:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick.net

[edit]
Patrick.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable website. The sources in the article do not establish notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Incomming links are irrelevant; Wikipedia has established guideline for defining notability at WP:Notability (web), specifically in the "Criteria" section of that guideline. What is needed to establish notability are "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I see some additional third-party sources that focus on the site or its founder have now been added to the article. If additional third-part references that provide non-trivial coverage of the site can be provided, that would help the article further. It's then up to the Wikipedia community to evaluate the quality of those sources to determine if they meet the threshold of notability as defined at WP:Notability (web), or via the general notability guideline at WP:N. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Barek. You have been a tremendous help, and your time is greatly appreciated. I'm Glad to know it's moving in the right direction. Will work on incorporating additional 3rd party articles. There are plenty. Do they all have to be in the form of in-line citations? I'm only asking because it would obviously be easier to add a whole bunch of related articles, but then expand the content and connect it to its respective citations, as time permits. Susannny (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)— Susannny (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
@Susannny: There are a few options - the links could be added to the "External Links" section or in a new Further reading section could be added just above the existing external links section; but any links that run afoul of Wikipedia's external links guideline could be removed by others. Optionally, a discussion section could be added to the article talk page at Talk:Patrick.net, where potential references could be listed until any editor has time to review them for later incorporation into the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As ThePlatypusofDoom just said, people have been canvassed into this discussion, which, of course, violates our meat-puppetry policy. For the canvass, see [1]. As our policy says, editors found to be a meatpuppet may be blocked from editing. Also, for anyone coming from that website, it is in everyone's best interest if you go ahead and say you came from there, per our conflict of interest policy, though it isn't required unless you're being paid to edit the page. If you are being paid by anyone to edit the page, it is required under the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use. Also, after reading through that forum page, I can say that very few of us here (including me) are admins and that almost anyone can add notices (such as the one at the top of this page) to almost any page. -- Gestrid (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: After reviewing the thread from the website, I'm not sure it qualifies as canvassing. He's asking for help. He asks for comments. Another user clarified that the comments need to be something that contributes to the improvement of the page so that it meets your requirements, including specifically asking that comments include citations. At no point was anyone asked to just come on here and vote "Yes." They were asked to comment, simply because who would know more about the site than the membership? Many of the members have been around for many years, some since the beginning (2004). They have watched it evolve... They read the various articles written about the site when the articles were first published. The older members of the site just know it well, and it was that knowledge he was hoping to access in order to generate ideas that would meet your criteria. As for the concern that contributors admit to being members, I am a member of the Patrick.net site. I've been a member for many years. That doesn't make my contributions here any less meaningful, and I have helped (so far) to get at least one "weak keep" from an admin, not because I "voted," but because I incorporated citations and corrected the references formatting, as requested by a contributor. I have no ownership interest in the Patrick.net website, and I am by no means being paid to help out. I'm helping because I choose to, and I support the idea that Patrick.net is something worthy of a Wiki entry. Additionally, I have had a Wiki account long before this particular Patrick.net Wiki page was created. I made extensive suggestions below, which I think address every issue you've mentioned. It is under the proviso that those additions be made that I felt comfortable adding a vote of keep. As always, I appreciate everyone's time and help, and I hope I was able to clarify the intention of the request for help found at the Patrick.net website.Susannny (talk) 09:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ThePlatypusofDoom: Wasn't sure. I've been here for years and I still don't know how or if I can check other users' permissions. And thanks for clearing that up. After seeing people in that forum going on about "admin posts" (one post specifically called the notice at the top of the page an admin post), I figured I should clear that up. Of course, once this discussion is done within the next few days, an admin will evaluate the consensus of the discussion. (Arguments without any policy-based reason given are usually disregarded.) That last bit was for those who came here from that website. -- Gestrid (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gestrid: Go to Special:ListUsers, type in the name of the user, and it shows their permissions. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt per ThePlatypusofDoom's comment. Salt it because, as the forum page said, it was deleted and then someone almost immediately recreated it. I have a feeling someone will likely do it again. -- Gestrid (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • After further consideration, I have decided that I'm okay with !voting for either "delete and salt" or "userfication", provided editors use WP:AFC and follow WP:COI. (Closer, count my !vote as either one, depending on the other !votes.) -- Gestrid (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If "userfication" and proceeding using a different path is the best option to decompress things, I'm all for it. This site is notable. We just need to get that across. Perhaps the creator submitted (probably without knowing the other options) too quickly. There's no ego, here. We are clearly not super experienced Wiki page creators. But we are genuine. If the issue is bias, though I assure you I truly can look at something objectively even if I'm considered biased as a "member," I know that may not be good enough to establish unbiased, 3rd party creation. But this site is notable. We just need some help to effectively communicate that (pardon the split infinitive).... Obviously. The very fact that an admin gave it a "weak keep" (before edits) and another user I cannot identify (not a patnet member I recognize, and I've been there a very long time) also gave it a "keep" should suggest some merit, here. (See, I didn't even include my "keep" in that accounting.) If it needs to be reclassified to give us time to work through some things, please point us in the right direction. I haven't the first clue how one goes about "userfying" a page so that it becomes a "draft" rather than a "submission," allowing the opportunity to find an independent, 3rd party editor to submit the article on Patrick.net's behalf. I'm still struggling with remembering to sign my additions! Do I need to do something, or do you do something? I'm learning as fast as I can. Susannny (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for not replying sooner, Susannny. I've been very busy in real life, though I have been keeping an eye on this discussion, including putting a reminder up that we shouldn't bite the newcomers by deleting something they created, from what I can tell, may have just not known what they were doing. (Of course, there are exceptions to this, like if the page was completely made from copyrighted material.) The best way, at the moment, to get the article moved into "draftspace", as we call it, is to simply put your not-vote so it says something like * '''Move to Draftspace''' per Gestrid. -- ~~~~. (~~~~, automatically changes into your signature, of course.) Copy that text above and put it after the very last comment on this page. -- Gestrid (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of tangible evidence of actual notability, plus the rather obvious fact that it was created (both times) by a user whose username is a variant spelling of Patrick, so it's almost certainly a promotional article (and indeed reads as such). Guy (Help!) 13:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree: The opinion statements contained in the article are pulled directly from the cited sources, which include WSJ, Nightline, ABC News, Business Insider. So, this is just what was said by the third-party source. Promotional articles wouldn't have support. Also, the matter about the deletion/recreation has already been addressed as user error.Susannny (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)— Susannny (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Sure so we disagree. I've been here over ten years and have over 80,000 edits to over 30,000 unique pages. You have been here about five minutes and have a handful of edits all but one related to this debate. Feel free to carry on disagreeing. Guy (Help!) 20:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, you could give me something more specific than "promotional." Is it the way something in particular is written? Oh, and you didn't answer the question on how mentioning something that's from news sources (or other 3rd party sources) would be classified as promotional. Seems like a lot of Wiki articles refer to such things. In fact, I believe it's one of the criteria for notability. Your vast experience is duly noted, and your comments are appreciated, particularly those that allow me to take specific action to rectify your concerns.Susannny (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This was not meant to be a duplicate vote. The vote above was qualified with conditions and the other vote was not. So the vote went from "keep with changes" to "keep" since the changes were made. I have since deleted the "keep with changes vote," since that's no longer applicable. So, the strikethrough is no longer necessary. There is only one vote. Susannny (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for clearing it up. No big deal, even the regulars lose track and throw up a dupe once in a while. - MrOllie (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Business Insider and CSMonitor pieces were authored by Patrick Killelea of Patrick.net, so not independent. WSJ and ABC interview Killelea about the housing slump, not really about the site. NPR isn't about the site either. We need some good sources that are about the site, not about its founders ideas on the housing slump. - MrOllie (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Business Insider pieces were not written by Patrick. The Business Insider pieces were written by other members of the forum. The very point is that the membership itself was authoring ideas that were being picked up by outside sources and published. That does speak to the website itself. NPR was the personification of the very debate that the site was initially about. Seems quite similar to other accepted pages of a similar type.Susannny (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The Business Insider pieces were written by other members of the forum", which STILL makes it non-independent of the forum though. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what you are saying, but the fact that contributions that came from the forum were considered of a level of quality that they would be picked up by a known publication speaks to the quality of the material provided by various users on the site. The page says that the articles were written by anonymous user of the site, so it's not pretending to be something that it isn't. AND, it provides evidence that speaks to how the site evolved from being exclusively a housing blog to one that discusses a multitude of topics. Now, this next part will sound petulant, and I don't mean it that way, but I have to ask. If you go to the Reddit page, not a dissimilar product and removed all their supporting citations that trace back to Reddit, you'd have nothing left. This isn't a tantrum, I'm truly just trying to understand because I genuinely want to fix it. When I read many of the comments, I see similar violations on a similar page that was, in fact, accepted. I actually had a hard time drilling down to the independent articles on their page, as there were literally hundreds of citations that go back to Reddit. Feel like you all are telling me some of these apples are oranges, and I'm still seeing all apples. As to notable... The requirements are Evidence is Verifiable (done), No Inherent Notability (we've shown that the site has attracted notice), and No Inherited Notability (admittedly, this is our weakest area, but I feel that this has been accomplished, particularly through the fact that the very articles you want to delete from Business Insider were, in fact, picked up by Business Insider by virtue of stand-alone notability of the site. Thank you, BTWSusannny (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you take a few seconds to scan down the list of references toward the end of the Reddit page, you'll find the NY Times, USA Today, Reuters, CNN, etc. Here's a good example of what we would like to see: CNN - here we have CNN/Money writing a piece about recent events on reddit.com. This isn't Ellen Pao being quoted on some other topic, this isn't some other site reposting a reddit comment verbatim. Reddit and events there are the main topic of the article. This is the kind of thing we would really like to see on all wikipedia articles. - MrOllie (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. Clearly, having an entire article dedicated solely to the site would be ideal. However, according to Wiki's own guidelines, "'Notability' is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even web content that editors personally believe is "important" or "famous" is only accepted as notable if it can be shown to have attracted notice." Yes, admittedly, there are differences in degree. However, the site has shown to have attracted notice, which is the listed requirement.Susannny (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, the site has generated some good content. The CNN article I just linked was good content, but we don't have an articles on Laurie Segall or Chris Isidore, who have written numerous pieces for CNN. While we have articles by those journalists, we do not have articles about those journalists. - MrOllie (talk) 21:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But that's precisely what attracted ABC News and NPR: the site. Patrick Killelea would have been unknown if not for the blog started at Patrick.net. Patrick.net is what caught their attention, hence the references to the site contained within those cited articles.Susannny (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susannny (talk • contribs) 22:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The site might have been the reason that he was noticed, but unless there's more coverage of it, it's not notable. (Thank you for working constructively, by the way. There are plenty of people who lash out when we consider deleting the article about something that they like, as the comments on the forum are an example of.) ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you see that even a site member can contribute constructively. I was a little thrown by the comments that site members must be biased... Sounded like something Trump said about a certain judge. I truly am just trying to help. Again however, I fail to see where a threshold of notability is THAT specifically laid out. The site is mentioned in major publications as why they were interviewing the creator. According to the Notability page, it is defined as "having attracted notice." It doesn't say how many times. It doesn't say how densely the article must refer to the site. It does say something about "passing mentions," but it's not like it's a passing mention on an unrelated issue. It's the whole reason for the interview. Perhaps this is like the "I know it when I see it." I just need to better understand the Roth Test being using here. And seriously, thank you for your help. Clearly, I'm no expert on getting Wiki pages up. I'm learning as I go, as is the creator. But going through this process has made me want to participate more on other, unrelated, pages, as I see that a tremendous amount of effort comes from people who are volunteering their time. You guys/gals are all volunteers, right? I feel kind of bad that I didn't realize this before. I actually love editing.Susannny (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susannny (talk • contribs) 01:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found easily notable sites, with WP articles of their own, reporting on the subject site. I linked a half dozen examples spanning several years. It would seem hasty to delete and salt before editors have time to establish notability.TVC 15 (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one's going to doubt that WSJ is a reliable source - it is - but does it discuss the subject in significant detail? I personally can't answer that - 90% of the article is locked behind a paywall, and I don't have a subscription. Can someone else confirm/deny? Sergecross73 msg me 20:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only seeing namechecks there, not substantive coverage. And osme of the sources are differently reliable. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The linked WSJ article[3] reports on residential housing sites and the people behind them. Regarding Patrick.net, the WSJ article says:
"For Patrick Killelea, however, this year has been one long victory lap. Mr. Killelea, a 41-year-old software engineer, has long preached that it makes more economic sense to rent than buy homes. He recalls shouting "Wow!" when he heard about September's 9.7% drop in prices of new homes.
"I didn't want to gloat," he says. "But then again, maybe I did."
* * *
Among all the defiant renters, few roar louder than Mr. Killelea, who pays $2,350 a month to rent a snug, two-bedroom craftsman house near Stanford University in Menlo Park, Calif. He figures it would cost him $7,000 a month in mortgage payments and taxes if he owned it.
Most mornings, he sits at a small pine table just off his kitchen and scans emails from acquaintances for any bad news that fits his world view. Before he heads off to work at a bank, he posts the dozen bleakest stories to his Web site -- patrick.net/housing/crash.html -- under the permanent headline, "U.S. Housing Crash Continues."
Almost anything grim will do. Economic assessments from Finnish newspapers pass the test. So does an ad from a Michigan home seller offering to cut his asking price $1,000 a day. One favorite posting consists of a spoof of a Realtor ad, showing a terrified woman screaming in front of a hideous house.
A native Midwesterner, Mr. Killelea worked in Chicago in the mid 1990s before moving to Silicon Valley in 1997 to take a job at Sun Microsystems Inc. He was excited about the $77,000 starting salary -- a 55% increase from his previous job -- until he discovered how much housing cost in California. He and his wife, Leah, rented for a few years in Palo Alto before deciding that they might find cheaper housing in Berkeley.
"We spent several months looking at open houses and bidding on properties," Mr. Killelea recalls. "We bid over the asking price, but never enough to win. On the last one, they were asking $395,000 and we bid $500,000. We got a call afterward, asking us if we wanted to raise our bid. We said, 'No.' We thought that was enough. It turned out that the house sold for $530,000."
After losing that Berkeley home, Mr. Killelea told his wife they were calling off the home-buying search. She says she wasn't thrilled. But they moved to a new rental -- their fourth in five years -- and nestled their two children into an upstairs bedroom with bunk beds.
Even though prices have come down a bit in parts of California, Mr. Killelea vows to resist the pressure to buy. Recently he mused on his Web site about why more people don't follow his example. "I get the feeling many wives are pressuring the husbands to buy," he wrote. "I know it's not politically correct to say so, but I think a lot of irrational purchases are driven by female nesting instincts."
Mr. Killelea says his wife has been "very understanding" about his refusal to buy at today's prices: "She can do the math, too."
But Ms. Killelea seems more open to the idea of homeownership. "We haven't really talked yet about when we'd want to start looking again," she says. "I think we're going to need to discuss that."[4]
At more than 500 words, I think that adds up to more than a namecheck[5]. If anyone objects that this longer excerpt might risk copyright infringement, please feel free to delete the excerpt from this comment. I am not trying to steal from or compete with any site; I am only trying to present the excerpts relevant to this discussion.TVC 15 (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biting Reminder: When considering this AfD, please remember our policy that says not to bite the newcomers: Avoid deleting newly created articles, as inexperienced authors might still be working on them or trying to figure something out. To me, this currently seems like a case where new users simply didn't really know what they were doing and didn't go through the proper channels. While this doesn't mean the page shouldn't be deleted, it does mean that we should definitely mean that we should assume good faith since we have no reason at this point to assume bad faith. That's why I changed my vote to userfy above. -- Gestrid (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Fraid I have to go delete on this one. Despite the best of efforts of several of the users of the site, I don't think we have found sufficient detailed coverage yet. The owner of the site is clearly notable, and several articles focus on him, but the website itself is only receiving passing mentions. If somebody wants to take this into their userspace with the understanding that they would only resubmit an improved version, I would not be opposed to userfication. Vanamonde (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The site owner's notability results from the site, and the articles report on him as the person behind the site. Consider The Wizard of Oz, who is notable only because of Oz, without which he would be only a man behind a curtain; Oz is what makes the Wizard notable. Likewise, whatever the owner's coding or culinary skills, the subject website is what makes him famous.TVC 15 (talk) 05:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some of participants of this AfD mentioned owner of that site may be notable, but not the site itself. There is no article about Patrick Killelea on English Wikipedia. I wonder (and I agree it is a little bit crazy idea...), wouldn´t be better to change focus of the article to owner himself and mention his site there? Pavlor (talk) 09:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pavlor: no, we'd need to create a separate article. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I looked through the WP List of Internet forums to get a sense of what qualifies as notable, and how the question is usually addressed. For example, Patrick.net has more than twice as many registered user accounts as Urdu Mehfil, and the Patrick.net article cites significant coverage in multiple WP:RS, compared to zero WP:RS references in Urdu Mehfil. The Urdu Mehfil article was flagged for notability in January 2015, but remains on WP. It's fine with me to see an article on Urdu Mehfil, and I'm not suggesting deleting it. However, may I please suggest some sort of timeline or sequence to address notability, rather than hastily deleting and salting before editors can even address the issue? I don't understand the rush to delete this particular article, when others have more than a year to address notability.TVC 15 (talk) 00:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 4 September 2 may suggest, 016 (UTC)
Thanks, as noted in that article, citing other stuff may be (and in this case is definitely) an argument against the speed with which certain users have attempted to delete the article faster than editors could supply WP:RS links establishing notability. And, while we are on the subject of other stuff, please see the | section on conclusory statements regarding notability. I have addressed all of your specific assertions, but you have not yet retracted your initial (incorrect) conclusion. I found your "namecheck" comment particularly puzzling, considering the linked WSJ article devotes more than 500 words specifically to the subject site including how and why it is made and by whom. Likewise Beth Kobliner's praise in The New York Times, wherein she called the subject site "excellent" and listed several of the arguments it addresses: I'd like to see similar coverage of the Urdu site, but haven't yet. The subject article cites independent coverage in multiple clearly notable WP:RS. The speed with which this article came up for deletion does therefore appear hasty compared to other articles that lack _any_ independent coverage in WP:RS, let alone as much.TVC 15 (talk) 08:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A masterpiece of quote-mining. OTHERSTUFF says that the inclusion of $THING is not an argument for (or indeed against) inclusion of $RELATEDTHING. The more arguments of this type we get, the more we are inclined to conclude that no valid basis for inclusion exists. Guy (Help!) 08:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you were being sincere, then thanks I guess, best I could do in the brief time allowed and amid competing responsibilities. If you were searching for a specific quote from WP:OTHERSTUFF, here is the quote you may have been looking for, I've italicized portions for your particular attention: "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist, because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. (This may be an argument that this article is not bad enough to be speedily deleted; but that does not mean it should be kept.) While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." If you were attempting sarcasm, then may I please refer you to WP:SARCASM? I don't want to prolong a pointless digression, but your comments in this particular discussion have not always met the standards that I had seen from other admins. So far, you appear to have bitten two newcomers, mischaracterized a lengthy article including more than 500 words on the subject site as a "namecheck," and resorted to sarcasm, all in a misguided effort to delete as not notable an article on a demonstrably notable website. I suggest a cup of tea, and some time to reconsider. Meanwhile, I've continued to add independent WP:RS coverage, so the article continues to improve.TVC 15 (talk) 05:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment UPDATE: Despite a busy Labor Day weekend, I have added several quotations from clearly notable and independent WP:RS reporting on the subject site. The article links now to 10 different examples, including authors and interviewers who are notable in themselves as described in WP articles of their own, linking thus to a dozen different WP articles. The linked WP:RS include The Wall Street Journal article excerpted above, which devoted more than 500 words specifically to Patrick.net and the people and events behind it, as well as other substantive coverage and interviews spanning a decade and with a combined audience of more than 20 million people. Any editors who voted to delete prior to these additions, please reconsider now that notability is established.TVC 15 (talk) 05:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now seems notable enough, just. Aoziwe (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Patrick.net&oldid=1098247227"