Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SpookyPig (talk | contribs) at 01:42, 10 April 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< April 9 April 11 >

Purge server cache

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. - Mailer Diablo 09:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeons in The Legend of Zelda series

Dungeons in The Legend of Zelda series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not encyclopedic, game guide material not of interest to the general reader. Pagrashtak 00:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the creator of this article, I'd like to address these concerns:

Notability:

  • If articles such as Places_in_The_Legend_of_Zelda:_Twilight_Princess are considered notable enough to stay on this site, surely this articles can be expanded to make it as keep-worthy as the other articles. Dungeons are the "meat and potatoes" of this series.

Verifiability

  • Zelda.com is really the only source we need. The official site has complete walkthroughs for every title in the series, just not with information organized in this fashion.

Etc.

  • This is not a "game help" or "game guide." My original intent was to have a page with similar purposes as "Places" except for dungeons only. I've been wanting to see a complete dungeon list for a long time, but I could never find one online.

So, with these reasons, I vote Keep. Wikipedian06 04:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Funny that a page I happen to come across right when I need it (this) is listed for deletion. I never saw what was so wrong with this kind of thing -- Wikipedia is, as stated, not limited by paper restrictions and this should not limit its contents strictly to notable things. If it's verifiable, and truthful, why delete it? Then again, maybe it's just any article I come across will be deleted lately... I'm backing the original page up to my userspace even though I'm sure some asswipe admin will simply delete it again, like they did with the other copy of a deleted page I was saving (and failed to respond when I asked about it) --72.193.66.186 04:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because Wikipedia is editable by everyone doesn't mean it becomes what every person individually wants. There's a clear focus for the project. Don't like it? Make your own wiki. --UsaSatsui 14:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yeah, um really people. Normally I find the accusation of 'game guide' to be totally off base, but in this case, it's EXACTLY what this is. Listing the dungeons within each article are fine, but saying where they are, what item is found there, and what the boss is? Can it BE any more of a guide? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:14, 14 April 2007 (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.
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. Majorly (hot!) 10:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stoopid Monkey

Stoopid Monkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The production company of actor Seth Green, which produces the TV series Robot Chicken. No sources in its three very short paragraphs attesting to its importance other than a link to its official articles of incorporation, one of its press release announcing that it's signed a deal -- and 42 links to a fanwiki intended to justify the inclusion of a complete list of 42 production logos used on the show. Fails WP:CORP (as a standalone subject, since it's not even mentioned in the Seth Green article itself), fails WP:RS, fails WP:OR (the list), and seems primarily to be used as a fancruftian vehicle for inserting the list of logos. Calton | Talk 00:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I think Calton has said it all! --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The company's production of an internationally televised TV series and two-picture deal with a major film studio firmly establish its notability. I agree with Calton that the list of production logos doesn't belong, and I also share the suspicion that sock/meat puppetry may have occurred (as a means of circumventing the 3RR), but neither is a valid reason to delete the article. Most of the above objections pertain to content that should simply be removed (as Calton and others attempted to do), leaving behind a perfectly valid stub about a notable company. —David Levy 01:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Detete the show is arguably notable, but not its producer which still has a second show to produce. --FateClub 02:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the very least, why not merge the lead into the Seth Green article and redirect Stoopid Monkey there? This factually is his production company, and there's no good reason not to document that fact somewhere (and send users who search for "Stoopid Monkey" to a relevant article). —David Levy 02:39, 10 April 2007 (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.
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. - Mailer Diablo 09:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese E.

Cheese E. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Cheese E. by name, Cheesey by nature - Hoax; I would have nominated this for speedy deletion, but a couple of people (apart from the hoaxer) have edited the article, so maybe it isn't as blatant as I think. Pufnstuf 00:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep, I'm not sure what you mean by hoax, Pufnstuf, because anyone with a 7-year-old brother knows that this is indeed quite an annoying little character from quite an annoying TV show. I've watched it enough to know the notablity of this character. Enough said. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I have no clue what I was thinking. I took one look at the picture (which has been deleted, the character there was real) and immediately said keep. I'm so embarrassed... --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't know what a hoax is? OK, I'll explain it for you; this article claims "Cheese E." is a main character in a series called "Kyle's Kracks". "Kyle's Kracks" receives zero Ghits. That's ZERO. His second feature film "C.V.B: Cheese Versus Blue", receives ZERO Ghits. Cheese E's current feature film "The Thumb Witch: The Hunt for Steven Oedekerk" receives ZERO Ghits. Hoax. Enough said. Pufnstuf 01:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete?, Strong Delete (if Cremepuff withdraws assertion of notability I have no question in my vote. Goodnightmush 02:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)) Cremepuff seems pretty confident this a real thing, but I can't find record of it. A Google search for ' "Cheese E." comic' returns only 220 results and one for the name of the comic it is allegedly in returns exactly one result...this article. Unless I'm missing something, delete. Goodnightmush 01:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, almost definitely a hoax, probably something the author made up in school one day. The fact that this article is the only Google result for "Kyle's Kracks" (as well as the "movies" mentioned at the bottom of the page) is pretty conclusive. The image appears to be of another cartoon character altogether. Krimpet (talk/review) 01:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly Krimpet, I was posting the same proof just as you posted this. It makes me wonder why anyone would recommend keeping such an obvious hoax though. Pufnstuf 02:04, 10 April 2007 (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.
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 and expand. -- zzuuzz(talk) 12:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Crackers (1937 comic strip)

Animal Crackers (1937 comic strip) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No sources, and no apparent notability; the creators, "Warren Goodrich" + "Dick Ryan", receive no Ghits combined. Borderline speedy because it fails to assert its notability (comic strips aren't automatically notable), but I'm listing it here in case anyone knows this. Also listing the similarly named, but apparently unrelated Animal Crackers (1930 comic strip) for the same reason - even less information in that one. Pufnstuf 00:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete, if references can be found, I'll change my vote. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless (good) references are given. Unverifiable for now (e.g. not on Toonopedia), even when searching for different spellings of names. Fram 11:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Keep per NewyorkBrad (thank you!). If no other sources can be found, perhaps an article on Goodrich, with a redirect from Animal Crackers to that new article, may be better, but that is more of an editorial decision, and does not mean that this comic strip is not notable, only that we currently lack enough information for a good independent article. Fram 05:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No assertion of notability for the authors or the strip. Also, in what publication was it featured? How long did it run? We don't know any of this because there aren't any sources of information given, no verifiability. --Cyrus Andiron 12:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete -as with Cremepuff222, I can't justify deletion if sources can be found, but as is, this is a delete. Nihiltres 12:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since no sources are to be found. No keep if nothing is attributable.. MURGH disc. 14:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as it's probably useful to keep a record of even obscure shows, i.e. to better catalog human knowledge of entertainment history. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cremepuff222. No sources. Acalamari 16:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find it listed in any of my sources, including The World Encyclopedia of Comics. 23skidoo 17:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced, with no indication of where the strip ran (newspapers? magazines? ads?). For all we know, it ran in some bi-weekly high school newspaper. Caknuck 19:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral - Changing vote per evidence mentioned below. As far as a Google search goes, make sure not to confuse this strip with the one of the same name that ran in the 1980s. Caknuck 03:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Would be willing to reconsider if verifiable references were provided. --ElKevbo 21:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, shattering the consensus above. This is outside my primary expertise but references include [1], an obituary of creator Warren Goodrich, which states that in 1934, "he started a syndicated cartoon feature called 'Animal Crackers,' using animals to depict human foibles. It became an instant success. Syndicated by the Chicago Sun-Times, the one-panel cartoon, which appeared six times a week, featured in more than 100 newspapers for many years. It was so popular that the [San Francisco] Chronicle featured it on its front page next to the weather report." See also [2]. A referral to Project Comics should be able to elicit additional information and sourcing. Newyorkbrad 21:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A surprising source in Los Altos Town Crier, but it's something. Too bad so little covers this particular article, but substantial enough to support a Goodrich article which this could be merged into. MURGH disc. 00:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If there's this in a 2-minute Google search, there is more out there, although a subject-matter specialist would be useful (I have a relative with a major library on the history of comics and will do some research there when I visit, though that won't be within the 5-day term of this AfD). Newyorkbrad 00:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand. The material cited by New York Brad shows that there is enough material for a stub with possible expansion later on. A Google News Archive shows that there are considerable sources out there to support an article on the strip. [3]. Capitalistroadster 02:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a prime example of a subject that needs hard-copy research, not online research, and a reminder that just because something's not popular with Generation Google doesn't mean it's not notable. Is there a comics wikiproject? --Charlene 02:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I also wonder if AFD rules should be amended for cases like this which require actually going to the library or other types of research. A five-day window for articles B.G. (before google) seems small. Neier 04:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I've added some brief information from a 1990s San Francisco Chronicle article I found in my library; that and Newyorkbrad's Los Altos Town Crier source should get us at least a decent stub. --Dragonfiend 05:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the comments above. Once again, the Google test fails us. RFerreira 02:32, 15 April 2007 (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.
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. - Mailer Diablo 09:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Politics of Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law

Politics of Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, and all of these "political issues" are already discussed in greater detail in List of Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law episodes. Pufnstuf 00:18, 10 April 2007 (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.
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 early close and delete per unanimous consensus by serious editors that this is a hoax. Sandstein 18:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repives

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 a preemptive deletion. --  Denelson83  07:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy, Sick and Cracked

Crazy, Sick and Cracked (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Disambiguation page for three related magazines. Nothing links to it (except the list of Disambig pages), and I doubt anyone would ever type in this phrase to find any of individual magazines. Flyguy649talkcontribs 00:21, 10 April 2007 (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.
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. -- zzuuzz(talk) 12:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Gouraly

James Gouraly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Possibly non-notable, possibly fails WP:BIO. Asking for ruling. Cool BlueLight my Fire! 00:32, 10 April 2007 (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.
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. - Mailer Diablo 09:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Dragon Ball

Timeline of Dragon Ball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This a non-notable, crufty list of dates in a fictional series. It cannot be referenced adequately, and is probably plagiarized. There is no way for it to be improved. Nemu 00:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably point out the deletion for Power level (Dragon Ball). It relied off of the same material for a source, and was more important in general than this (yet still crufty and unimportant). Nemu 01:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dragonball has Three parts The timeline nicely summerises it all. DBZROCKS 01:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please change your "Support" and "Oppose" votes to "Keep" and "Delete". It appears very confusing. Are you supporting deleting or supporting keeping? - Zero1328 Talk? 01:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I support the Dragon Ball Timeline because it summirises the plot of the entire series including movies without being too long. DBZROCKS 00:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC) *Keep I feel that it is need do to it has the time and dates of many important event in Dragon Ball history. It can be improved but it is a ok article. Heat P 00:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very, very weak Keep This page needs to be worked heavily, I will try to add references as soon as I'm done with Devil May Cry's FAC. -凶 00:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per Nemu's points--$UIT 00:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Material that only appeared in a "reference" book and only in Japan. Since it wasn't adapted directly from the series (which had very very few references to internal dates), inclusion of such a lengthly list can't be anything more than plagarism.JRP 01:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a timeline of a major series, which could certainly be improved if people took the effort to do so. I'm not sure how anyone could claim Dragon Ball is non-notable, but whatever. The only valid concern is the copyright issue. Where do you believe it was copied from? FrozenPurpleCube 03:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's basically a word for word copy of its only source, the only noticeable difference being what things are called and how they're spelt. Given that this source says, "If you see this exact translation on anyone elses' site, that means they stole it from me, in that event, please contact me," you could easily slap a {{db-copyvio}} on it and be done with it. ~SnapperTo 06:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sounds like somebody should contact that author then, see if they care to give permission for its use, and if not, delete, with no prejudice against recreation. FrozenPurpleCube 14:29, 10 April 2007 (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.
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. - Mailer Diablo 09:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie O'Neil

Bonnie O'Neil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I've been meaning to AfD this for a while. Article is a case of WP:AUTOBIO/WP:OR/WP:COI as it was created by User:Perryo, who claims to be husband of the subject. She seems to have written or edited a few technical reports, mostly NN as far as I can tell, and edited a textbook or two (not authored, as the article says). Still, no independent sources, so doesn't meet WP:BIO. Danski14(talk) 00:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, also the father of Chris O'Neil, who apparently is notable. Danski14(talk) 04:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She is the principle of Westridge Consulting, and it's odd that this is not even mentioned in the article.Her work is hard to search as there is an apparently more-widely known economic development consultant with the same name. None of her work is in the least academic--not even listed in CiteSeer. It is possible that an article could be written, but not based on this one. DGG 23:42, 10 April 2007 (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.
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. - Mailer Diablo 09:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mariners Mania

Seems like promotion by User: Crushed Optimism. Does not satisfy WP:WEB, so far as I can tell. As a Mariners fan, I have never heard of this site. C S (Talk) 01:06, 10 April 2007 (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.
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 Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, no indep. sources. NawlinWiki 14:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Young NOLA

Young NOLA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't provide enough sources to make this musician to be notable. It only provides a MySpace page. Also, I provided a Google search and didn;t get results about such artist. Only links to sites of profiles of the perosn on accounts he could possibly made like MySpace, My Crib, SoundClick, & iSound. esanchez, Camp Lazlo fan! 01:05, 10 April 2007 (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.
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 speedy delete. Harryboyles 12:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HP Output Management Solutions

HP Output Management Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be nothing but spam. Questionable assertion of notability of the specific service. Previous prod. Page originally claimed to be copyvio, even if this is not the case it doesn't seem to be notable and is blatant advertising. Goodnightmush 01:08, 10 April 2007 (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.
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 as original research. - Mailer Diablo 09:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative natural history

Alternative natural history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The user Warfwar3 has been creating a string of articles, Future Human Evolution (speedy delete), Speculative biology (prod, user keeps creating redirects) and now Alternative natural history. These all seem be advertisement/presentation of original research in relation to the book Future Evolution, which was written by Peter Ward (offhand suspicious sounding relation to Warfwar3, but that may just be a coincidence). Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 01:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well the problem is that it wasn't really deleted content, the author appears to have "contested" the prod on the original article by redirecting it here with essentially the same text and an example for padding. Not quite a G4 but constantly trying to dodge the issue by redirecting content elsewhere really isn't appropriate. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2007 (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.
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. It seems that the article has been improved with the addition of reliable sources.Yannismarou 08:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EmailCash

EmailCash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:WEB. All references are directly related to the subject, bringing this article closer to an advertisement rather than an encyclopedic subject. Longhair\talk 01:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Oh I've heard of them, but are they notable outside of their own advertising efforts? -- Longhair\talk 01:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my view you have done little more than made the article more of an advertisement. There are claims being made (for example comments like ... with over 400,000 members as of 2005) require inline referencing and the article needs to be reworded to encyclopedic terms. Most of us won't mind it staying up and I might even change my vote but please provide direct inline references very soon else I will remove the uncited, non-attributed information in the next little while.--VS talk 08:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was merely trying to help whoever posted this article, if someone could rewrite it in a more encyclopedic way then I encourage them as I feel EmailCash is a notable company. Comments such as with over 400,000 members as of 2005 were more to establish the importance of the company rather than advertise it, personally I have no interest in supporting or joining emailcash, especially after doing some secondary research on it. Bandwagonman 08:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have removed the obvious comments that may come across as advertising, there may be more that need deleting, also I have referenced two of the articles suggested by capitalistroadster, I still believe that emailcash is a notable company. Bandwagonman 09:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have altered my view as noted above after Bandwagonman's attention and good work.--VS talk 10:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
change to Keep 4 reliable sources(didnt check but agf they aren't advertorials) 3 aust newspapers, and 1 nz business mag. Gnangarra 14:23, 15 April 2007 (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.
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 speedily deleted by Soumyasch. MER-C 12:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our Candidate

Our Candidate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There's no information on itSpookyPig 01:41, 10 April 2007 (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/Log/2007_April_10&oldid=121577367"