No subject

> The article was deleted once again, prompting Ethan Zuckerman to write a =
blog post...

Despite coming later in the essay, presumably this refers to the third
deletion. As I've pointed out this was exactly the same as the second,
and came before the WSJ post.

Honestly, I think this is an example of Wikipedia working pretty well.
The only problem was perhaps a misleading third deletion summary.

Pete / the wub

[1] http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2010/03/24/makmendes-so-huge-he-cant=
-fit-in-wikipedia/
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3DMakmende&oldid=3D351782499
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Makmende
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3DMakmende&action=3Dhistorysu=
bmit&diff=3D352988064&oldid=3D351864233