Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 4 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Steve Dufour (talk | contribs) at 02:10, 4 August 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:10, 4 August 2006 by Steve Dufour (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< August 3 August 5 >
Guide to deletion Centralized discussion
Village pumps
policy
tech
proposals
idea lab
WMF
misc
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

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 redirect to Live action. Anyone who wants to tackle categorization is welcome to. -- Samir धर्म 05:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Live Action Anime

Contested prod. The previous version was mostly a POV rant against live-action versions and general information about one forthcoming live actions movie. An anon tried to clean this up, but the article as it currently is can easily be converted into a category. Any information the article could contain should (theoreticallly) either be placed in Tokusatsu or Japanese television drama or Live action.--Kunzite 00:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind deleteing and categorizing, but live action remakes of anime and manga isn't confined only to Japan, City Hunter and Initial D are examples of official live action remakes that are not Japanese. --ColourBurst 01:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
That's why I suggested Live action as the redirect point. --Kunzite 03:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, when I opened the article I wondered if it was a category I was looking at. --HResearcher 06:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Isn't anime, by definition animated? By your definition, the recent cinematic release of the Lord of the Rings should then be live action animation, since it was originally animated. --Xrblsnggt 02:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
That could be fixed by changing the name to something like live action adaptions of anime. --Edgelord 02:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
(It's not my definition. --Kunzite 03:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC))
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TheFarix (Talk) 02:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think this is a topic that is alright to be kept. There is a difference between live action anime and say live action comic book adaptations or live action cartoon movies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sfezfilms (talk • contribs) .
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, CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 01:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Styles of rhythm

Doesn't meet Misplaced Pages's policy for notability Ted87 00:49, 4 August 2006 (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 redirect to dance music. - Mailer Diablo 22:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Dance (music)

Duplicate of the already existing dance music article (without the brackets). Either we should have the article at dance (music) or at dance music, but we shouldn't have it at both titles with and without the brackets. Voortle 00:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You delete the page. Then, you create a redirect at the title where the page once existed. GassyGuy 07:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
You mean blank the page then place a redirect. Deletion is an admin action, correct? Also deletion does not include merging.--HResearcher 10:26, 4 August 2006 (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 redirect to Hawaiian sovereignty movement. I read both and the soverignty movement article seems to already contain everything from this article. If there's anything worth merging, it can be found in the page history. Kimchi.sg 01:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hawaiian Independence Movement

1) Repeated NPOV violations; 2) Material covered elsewhere Jpetersen46321 01:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I don't think NPOV violations are criteria for deletion. --HResearcher 06:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
You mean blank then redirect. Why delete it (admin action) when it's only going to be recreated to enter the redirect? --HResearcher 10:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment: It was blanked by User:128.171.107.200. I have reverted the "vandalism". --HResearcher 21:11, 4 August 2006 (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 nomination withdrawn. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That's what we call speedy keep.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING 11:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

List of colleges and universities in Washington

List is redundant to Category:Universities and colleges in Washington Nomination withdrawn. The convincing piece of the puzzle to me was Category:Lists of universities and colleges in the United States, which shows how the lists-by-state make another axis from the other categories of lists. In that context, I see the list as very useful. —C.Fred (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC), edited 04:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep per precedent (Category:Lists of universities and colleges in the United States); lists aren't always redundant to categories. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - I am the one who created this list. Originally, some states had lists of colleges and universities and others did not. I created lists for each state based on what was on the list of colleges and universities in the United States, which I turned into a directory page for the state lists. Right now, every state has a list. Keep in mind that lists have some advantages over categories, mainly in that they can be organized differently, include institutions that do not yet have an article, and provide additional information (such as the city in which the institution is located). My plan was to format all the state lists to look similar to the list of colleges and universities in Tennessee. I started working on them alphabetically, but I only got as far as California before I realized how big a task that was and decided to take a break. I was hoping to get back to it eventually or to at least get some help with the task. If you look at some of the other state lists that I worked on, you should be able to see that these lists have some advantages over categories, and the two should complement each other nicely. I agree that this list in its current state is pointless, but I suggest that we improve this list rather than delete it. In any case, I don't think it makes sense to delete this list unless we deleted most of the other state lists as well, as well as the lists for many other countries. --Cswrye 03:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - I made some improvements to the list. It still needs some work, but I hope that this is enough to show that it is worth keeping. --Cswrye 04:42, 4 August 2006 (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 no consensus, even after discounting the repeated keeps by a single editor. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Crime Expo SA

Non-notable website Guinnog 01:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Invictahog and JIP, the nominator's reason is irrelevant because it's not true. Crime Expo SA is notable per it's media coverage. --HResearcher 10:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Guinnog, that is not a valid vote. If Zyxoas wants to make input he can do it himself. --HResearcher 21:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
See my user talk for his explanation of why he couldn't do it himself, and his request to me to vote on his behalf. --Guinnog 21:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I think it will be up to the person administering this Afd to decide whether Zyxoas opinion will count. Thanks --HResearcher 07:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - While it has received some attention, its exceedingly doubtful that it will remain notable for long. I second the suggestion by BrownHairedGirl above. Impi 16:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The listed sources establish notability. The article has textual problems, but that's grounds for editing, not deletion. And quite frankly, Zyxoas' response makes me want to see the article expanded, not deleted; I want to know what it is about this website, or about the South African culture, or the combination of the two, that produces such a passionate reaction. Kickaha Ota 16:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I agree that this has gotten enough attention to merit at least the brief article that it has. --Brianyoumans 19:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, that's the problem; there can never be anything else beyond a URL and the (2?) media mentions the URL has had. Unencyclopedic. This is not a listings service. --Guinnog 21:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
      • What notability criteria does it fail? --Daduzi 21:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
        • WP:WEB, I don't think it has had "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". I think this Misplaced Pages article (very poor though it is) is an attempt to bolster the credibility of a fairly new scare site. I don't think we should be doing that. --Guinnog 21:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
          • How do the BBC, CNN, the Cape Times (, subscription required) and the largest online new source in South Africa not count as multiple non-trivial published works? --Daduzi 22:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If you read the CNN and the BBC articles, you will see that they are almost identical, no doubt because they will have been drafted from the same Reuters article. Without having paid to look at the Cape Times article, I would guess it will be the same Reuters article a third time. I would look for more than this before we should have an article on it. Wait a month or two and see what happens. You should have no problem getting more than this (effectively) one news report of a new website by then. Or it will have sunk without a trace, as a lot of these things do. It is so easy to set up a web site, we need to be especially careful in applying our guidelines to our articles on them.

I also, as I said, get the queasy feeling that Misplaced Pages is being used here, to garner respectability for this scare site. Transwiki to Wikinews perhaps? --Guinnog 22:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe the BBC and CNN articles as "nearly identical", and it's worth pointing out that the BBC article does not credit Reuters. Incidentally, I was wrong about the Cape Times article and the article (which does credit Reuters) is avaliable here. In any case, whether or not the original source was the same is irrelevant, what's important is that 2 major news organisations and assorted newspapers and lesser news organisations saw fit to report on the subject. As for the issue of garnering respectibility, I'd agree that it's a concern with the article as it stands but being the fact that an article may be written in a promotional way isn't grounds to delete it, but can be grounds to extensively rewrite it.--Daduzi 23:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment. I'm not sure that "the queasy feeling that Misplaced Pages is being used here" is a factor we should be considering. Either the subject of an article is notable or it isn't. If it's sufficiently notable, then it should be covered. If we start to say 'Well, yes, it's notable, but it's notable for the wrong reasons', then we set ourselves up for selection bias. Yes, we often delete articles for being advertisements. I've certainly rejected dozens of AfC articles for that reason. But when an article is deleted on that ground (as opposed to being rewritten), it's not just because it's an advertisement; it's because it's an advertisement of a non-notable subject -- in other words, it's an attempt to use Misplaced Pages to help the subject become notable. If the subject is already notable, then we rewrite, not delete. Otherwise, every article about a company, product or service on Misplaced Pages would become an instant candidate for deletion, since undoubtedly those articles help bring attention to the subjects of the articles. So in this case, if the website is notable (and it appears to be), then the article shouldn't be deleted just because it may have been written with the intent to draw people to the website. If that intent shows up in the article itself, then edit or delete the offending portions of the article. Kickaha Ota 05:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, sure. As I (and several others) have said, I think its current notability is marginal at best, and this Misplaced Pages article is an attempt to raise its profile and make it notable. If we delete the POV from the article, we are left with a URL, two external links (which read like they were based on the same Reuters article, or maybe the same press release, and so are counted by me as one), and a summary of the one-man site's sensationalistic content. Not a very encyclopedic article!
I also count the website's novelty against it; as I said, why not delete for now and see if it attracts any other comment in the coming months, or if it sinks like a stone as many of these yellow press sites do? I agree with you that if the article is allowed to stay on Misplaced Pages it will have to be very extensively edited to conform to NPOV. --Guinnog 12:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
"Why not delete for now and see if it attracts any other comment in the coming months?" Because Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball. What needs to be established is if there are sufficient verifiable sources to claim notability now, if the website generates no further press then the article can remain a discussion of the one issue that did generate press. And, no, the article would not just be a URL, external links and a summary of content; if that were all that could be written about there'd be no possible claim to notability as no major news organisations would have written about such a topic. The fact that news organisations have written about it, however, means that there is something that can be added to the article. I have to ask, if you have such an issue with the article's current format why not simply be bold and write your own, less POV version? --Daduzi 13:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, we obviously have different views on the "not a crystal ball" thing. I would interpret it (and this was what I meant above) as meaning we should delete the article for now, until or unless it attracts more coverage and comment, and thus more notability. You have a different view; that's fine, I suppose that's what these AfD discussions are about.
As to being bold, I don't think you'll find many editors who will put a lot of work into rewriting an article that they have proposed for deletion. If the proposal was successful, it would be an awful waste of time, wouldn't it? But don't worry, even if this proposal is unsuccessful I will be watching it closely and, yes, my first action would be to completely rewrite it to conform with NPOV, MoS etc. I hope you will join me in this, should my first wish (to expunge what I stil think is a bid for notability from our encyclopedia) be unsuccessful. --Guinnog 14:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Guinnog, you say: "I don't think you'll find many editors who will put a lot of work into rewriting an article that they have proposed for deletion". But you nominated this for deletion and then say "my first action would be to completely rewrite it". And you are strongly arguing against notability, yet this subject has been covered by CNN and BBS. --HResearcher 15:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I went and looked at the site. It has a fair amount of material on it - probably several hundred messages from crime victims, plus lots of statistics, other stuff. There was a list of the most recent reader comments, and there had been about 10 in the last 6 hours. The crime victim messages each had from 50 to (the highest I saw) 2000 page reads. A message from the site owner claimed that many recent victim letters had not been put up yet due to a website move.--Brianyoumans 19:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If you go to the section "Popular content" and "All times" on the Crime Expo Website you will get an indication of the quantity times an article was read. Take the article: "Young male attacked on his small holding in Johannesburg". It had 7447 reads when this comment was posted. This is only 1 article, and there are hundreds. The website must have significant support.--Jackes 09:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This article must stay here. This website has achieved a lot in a very small time, and is very notable. Other websites refer to the Crime Expo Website. As an example a well established trade Union in South Africa "Solidarity" have a link to Crime Expo. They will not have links to SPAM websites. Click hereto go to the page that display the link.--Jackes 09:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The content of the Crime Expo article can be edited / modified to improve the article. More information can be added, such as the fact that the South African tourist industry does not like the website + their reason(s) for it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackes (talk • contribs) (second 'keep' from this user)
  • DeleteMisplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a news station. The article describes the site in question as a "place for victims to tell their stories." That makes it basically a blog. There are about 700 G-hits. Although it has achieved some notoriety, this may be temporary. It has not been in existence long enough to establish notability. The attestations to notability in the article at the time of me writing this show that it a sensation-- for the present. They do not demonstrate sufficient notability to meet WP:WEB. We will see. For now, the creator should park a copy in his user space and try again if the site continues to become more well known. Cheers. :) Dlohcierekim 21:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a news station. Misplaced Pages have articles on news stations such as BBC, CNN & Reuters. By witing an article on these, Misplaced Pages does not become a news station? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackes (talk • contribs) (third 'keep' from this user)
  • Keep Dlohcierekim, your argument is misleading. There is more than 1 search engine on which info can be found. Then you can enter "Crime Expo SA" as well as "Crime Expo South Africa", or just "Crime Expo". All these refer to articles on the same subject. A Google search on just "crime expo" reveils about 15200 hits. , As an example not all the hits uses SA or South Africa, such as the Google results that linked to a political party in South Africa. This means that the website even received political attention , a amazing achievement, that shows notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackes (talk • contribs) (fourth 'keep' from this user)
  • Keep Dlohcierekim, how many G-Hits would you consider to give notability? Is 700 hits not sufficient. It appear to me as if it a considerable quantity.--Jackes 09:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC) (fifth 'keep' from this user, who has made 12 edits, all in relation to this article. First edit summary was "(Let's test the impartiality of Misplaced Pages.)"

Response to User:Jakes. No, that is not sufficeint G-Hits. Show me where this article meets WP:WEB, and I will reconsider my vote. You have voted at least four times now. Please stop doing that. Anything after your one and only "vote" should be captioned as a "comment"(in bold) and offset with a colon. Also, please sign your comments with ~~~~ so we know who is commenting. Cheers.  :) Dlohcierekim 17:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment I have about 8,000 G-hits and I am certainly not notable. Cheers. :) Dlohcierekim 17:27, 8 August 2006 (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 Delete. Yanksox 03:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Joe Ross (trader)

Financial trader; I don't see the notability here. NawlinWiki 01:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Joe Ross (trader) could be using google bomb marketing techniques. It's in his interest for his company. At first glance, I would vote delete in an afd of Joe Ross (referee). I'll consider nominating that article Bwithh 02:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment: How can we check for sure he has used search engine optimizations to get the place? But I notice there are some other websites which talks about him too (eg interviews found at Trade2Win and Moneybags etc.) Does it suggest he has some fame in trading fields? I think we need someone who is in the trading field to answer this question. By the way, did you issue an afd of Joe Ross (referee)?--Wai Wai (talk) 04:08, 5 August 2006 (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 delete. Sango123 22:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Old Man's Club

Non-notable local organization. The article reads almost like the pub variation of WP:NFT —C.Fred (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2006 (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 CSD G7 - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Bradford Networks

Article about a company that doesn't even say what it does. No assertion of the company's notability in the article, fails WP:CORP. Kimchi.sg 01:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted yesterday, but that version was a copy and paste, which arguably lacked context. The new version is written from scratch. Kimchi.sg 01:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This remarkable company introduced new concept "NAC OS" at the first time and their position in the NAC market is getting bigger. More objective information will be added. Please accept this page. Thanks. - Dsk7061-

Comment I have no idea about this one. Dsk can you provide more information? --HResearcher 07:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment It may be worth nothing that this user is the creator of the article, and has only contributed to pages relating to it and its deletion. RandyWang (/review me!) 08:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
That is worth nothing, but I think there are many users who specialize on only certain articles or perhaps only one article. What needs to be looked at is WP:V and that's why I'm asking Dsk for references. --HResearcher 10:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed the content. Thanks Smerdis (and others), you got valid point. I just removed the content. Thank you all Wikipedian here for helping me to learn more about Misplaced Pages. I will study more about Wikipeding : ) -Dsk7061-

hmm... I guess I do not have permission to remove the content. whoever has the permission, please delete the content with title. Thanks - Dsk7061



Thoughts

First of all, appreciate all you conscientious Wikipedian. Actually, it was first time to post a message here. I am very impressed with such a powerful self-cleansing action by Wikipedian.

As to this matter, I want to tell several things.

With a little bit my experience with Misplaced Pages, I just think about three keywords for Misplaced Pages. “Curiosity”, “Explore”, and “Define”

According to the current description of NAC by Misplaced Pages, “It is still an emerging technology space, and many vendors are taking advantage of this lack of definition to jump on the NAC bandwagon. But if we boil down NAC to its essence,” This means we need to provide more information to define what the NAC is in general somehow.

“If we boil down” who is the “We”? “We” should be individual, school, even company, anyone who got interested in NAC. In order to boil down NAC objectively, I believe we need to gather more information(fact) about NAC from all different channels excluding subjective opinions. But related concept, idea, and even specific solution should be introduced.

Especially, lots of vendors work on the NAC so it would not hurt to introduce NAC-related companies.

I think that “unheard-of and non-notable” does not help defining the definition of NAC at this stage. I guess that it is against “curiosity” and “explore”

Just thought.

Thanks for all your good work, Wikipedian!

- Dsk7061

PS. Is it ok to count myself as Wikipedian : )

Comment: Actually, the three keywords for Misplaced Pages would be more like "neutral, verifiable, and free. You might want to read WP:8W and some of the pages it links to. Hope to see you continue contributing! —Scott5114↗ 17:15, 4 August 2006 (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 Speedy keep. SynergeticMaggot 05:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Christine Croshaw

WP:BIO subject not notable Ohconfucius 01:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep She worked with Derek Jacobi (!!!) and other notable persons. Notable enough for me. Google looks promising too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep based on this list of her records on Amazon. A lot of the indy rock bands we see here all the time will not manage that many in their lifetime. I did remove the agent contact info from the article: Misplaced Pages is not a booking directory. Fan-1967 02:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Let us view this in perspective. Being involved in at least five albums sounds notable to me, especially if the genre is indy rock music. Her work with other notable people in this field asserts her notability as well. --Siva1979 03:00, 4 August 2006 (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 of the debate was Delete. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 04:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Blue_Blooded_Allstars

This is not a band as stated in the article, in fact it is not even an entity Chillicane 01:57, 4 August 2006

It looks like it might have been some kind of "super"group that formed for that one album. They are mentioned on that albums page tho. Basement12 02:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete and redirect to Hilltop Hoods. I don't think that a group that sang one song on one album really deserves an article. That said, we do have Automatic Baby which fits the same bill. However, only MC Suffa has a page which was actually blank so I linked it to the Hilltop Hoods. InvictaHOG 03:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

--Chillicane 04:00, 5 August 2006 (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 redirect. Kimchi.sg 03:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Snow((Hey Oh))

Exact same content as Snow ((Hey Oh)) Basement12 02:08, 4 August 2006 (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.

{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/PageName}}