Etuvluk River – The article has been recreated, so this debate is moot. Please take further discussion to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Etuvluk River. – Picaroon (t) 17:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Etuvluk River (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` I've never seen such a disregard to consensus and procedure. This page is currently up for AfD and 7 of the 9 votes are for "keep" with all supporting their reasoning. But somebody came along and speedy deleted this article. I don't even know who deleted it. This needs to be restored and the AfD in progress needs to resume with an existent article. Here is the current AfD. --Oakshade 04:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Immediate Restoration and Relist at AfD. The deletion was done by Geogre, who was himself discussing in the Afd, and who would have done better to confine his views to the AfD discussion. I suggest he seriously think about reverting himself. I'd simply revert it except I'd been engaged in the discussion also. DGG (talk) 05:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep deleted as a valid CSD A1 speedy. Geogre's discussion in the AfD was to say "speedy delete" at the same time that he speedy deleted it, which doesn't really seem to me to be inappropriate. In any event, I'm uncertain how an article whose entire content is "The Etuvluk river is a river in Alaska" is not a valid speedy under A1. That's not an article. It's barely even a sentence. Nandesuka 05:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Allow recreation as Etivluk River, apparently the correct or preferred spelling (which was inhibiting WP:V). It's on maps under that name, e.g. here using microsoft VE (labels), and in the USGS system here (if that is a permanent url). I somewhat object to the process here as editors were demonstrating its existence using the other spelling, but it amounts to a fresh article either way, so as long as we can get Geogre or whomever to stand aside things should be fine. --Dhartung \| Talk 05:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep this version deleted since the article is so empty that it is virtually a non-article, worse than a redlink since it fools the reader into thinking there is an article when there isn't. Allow recreation by all means since rivers are perfectly notable geographic features. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] From the person who deleted it: It was a 100% A1 speedy delete. Since there was an ongoing AfD, I went there to explain my rationale. I did not take part in the debate. I hate short circuiting AfD, but there was nothing debatable. I was explaining my action and taking time out to holler a bit at the people at AfD. That might have been impolitic, but people were, again and again, talking "notable!" at AfD and missing the fact that it's not about "notable" in these cases. "Notable" is an assessment of a topic, not an article. A notable topic could have an invalid article, and a non-notable topic could have a gorgeous article (and they often do). The article as it was was a textbook example of an A1 speedy delete: restatement of the title and a link. Did you know that the Etuvluk River is a river? Could there be a valid article? I suppose. Was there one? No. Obviously, I believe in keeping this version deleted and not giving glory to the author of such a semantic nullity, and, as with all other speedy deletes, there is no prejudice against a fully formed article on the same topic. Geogre 11:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Restore and improve. Mowsbury 13:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Festoon with persimmons A silly vote for an extremely silly situation. Not one but two lengthy debates over a six-word article. This is exactly the sort of thing that makes Wikipedia look bad. If some of the effort spent debating this was put into actually improving the article, it would probably be in fine shape by now. If nobody is willing or able to improve it, it should remain deleted as inherently unexpandable. In either case, reams of discussion over six short words is ludicrous. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse speedy deletion. I'd also question the reasons given by the nominator. The action seems to be in accordance with policy, as WP:DP clearly states that "Pages on proposed deletion or deletion discussion (see below) are still subject to speedy deletion, which overrides the other process." Per Geogre, Nandesuka, and Sjakkalle, it is difficult to see how the stated criterion could not apply. I see no problem with recreation under the original title (if sufficient material can be found for a proper article), or with a different spelling. Jakew 14:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note - since most agree this is fairly silly, I've gone ahead and re-created the article (with some more useful information). Sorry if I short-circuited this discussion but .. the correct course of action seemed rather evident. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Etuvluk River – The article has been recreated, so this debate is moot. Please take further discussion to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Etuvluk River. – Picaroon (t) 17:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I've never seen such a disregard to consensus and procedure. This page is currently up for AfD and 7 of the 9 votes are for "keep" with all supporting their reasoning. But somebody came along and speedy deleted this article. I don't even know who deleted it. This needs to be restored and the AfD in progress needs to resume with an existent article. Here is the current AfD. --Oakshade 04:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate Restoration and Relist at AfD. The deletion was done by Geogre, who was himself discussing in the Afd, and who would have done better to confine his views to the AfD discussion. I suggest he seriously think about reverting himself. I'd simply revert it except I'd been engaged in the discussion also. DGG (talk) 05:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted as a valid CSD A1 speedy. Geogre's discussion in the AfD was to say "speedy delete" at the same time that he speedy deleted it, which doesn't really seem to me to be inappropriate. In any event, I'm uncertain how an article whose entire content is "The Etuvluk river is a river in Alaska" is not a valid speedy under A1. That's not an article. It's barely even a sentence. Nandesuka 05:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation as Etivluk River, apparently the correct or preferred spelling (which was inhibiting WP:V). It's on maps under that name, e.g. here using microsoft VE (labels), and in the USGS system here (if that is a permanent url). I somewhat object to the process here as editors were demonstrating its existence using the other spelling, but it amounts to a fresh article either way, so as long as we can get Geogre or whomever to stand aside things should be fine. --Dhartung | Talk 05:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this version deleted since the article is so empty that it is virtually a non-article, worse than a redlink since it fools the reader into thinking there is an article when there isn't. Allow recreation by all means since rivers are perfectly notable geographic features. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From the person who deleted it: It was a 100% A1 speedy delete. Since there was an ongoing AfD, I went there to explain my rationale. I did not take part in the debate. I hate short circuiting AfD, but there was nothing debatable. I was explaining my action and taking time out to holler a bit at the people at AfD. That might have been impolitic, but people were, again and again, talking "notable!" at AfD and missing the fact that it's not about "notable" in these cases. "Notable" is an assessment of a topic, not an article. A notable topic could have an invalid article, and a non-notable topic could have a gorgeous article (and they often do). The article as it was was a textbook example of an A1 speedy delete: restatement of the title and a link. Did you know that the Etuvluk River is a river? Could there be a valid article? I suppose. Was there one? No. Obviously, I believe in keeping this version deleted and not giving glory to the author of such a semantic nullity, and, as with all other speedy deletes, there is no prejudice against a fully formed article on the same topic. Geogre 11:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and improve. Mowsbury 13:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Festoon with persimmons A silly vote for an extremely silly situation. Not one but two lengthy debates over a six-word article. This is exactly the sort of thing that makes Wikipedia look bad. If some of the effort spent debating this was put into actually improving the article, it would probably be in fine shape by now. If nobody is willing or able to improve it, it should remain deleted as inherently unexpandable. In either case, reams of discussion over six short words is ludicrous. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy deletion. I'd also question the reasons given by the nominator. The action seems to be in accordance with policy, as WP:DP clearly states that "Pages on proposed deletion or deletion discussion (see below) are still subject to speedy deletion, which overrides the other process." Per Geogre, Nandesuka, and Sjakkalle, it is difficult to see how the stated criterion could not apply. I see no problem with recreation under the original title (if sufficient material can be found for a proper article), or with a different spelling. Jakew 14:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - since most agree this is fairly silly, I've gone ahead and re-created the article (with some more useful information). Sorry if I short-circuited this discussion but .. the correct course of action seemed rather evident. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

eComXpo – Keep closure endorsed. – Xoloz 04:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
EComXpo (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`\|`AFD2`)` In spite of the majority of editors supporting "keep", this article is in clear violation of the notability criteria required by WP:CORP and of the WP:SOAPBOX prohibition against advertisements. This is not a vote, and the closing admin should have weighted policy-based arguments, and not simple "keeps", and if he did weight policy, then I believe he erred Two re-publications of press releases as filler, corporation blogs, and self-published press releases are not reliable sources for purposes of WP:CORP notability. --Cerejota 04:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] BTW, The original, successful, AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EComXpo was clear on the lack of notability, and the editors set forth that the criteria. Since in effect that AfD was overturned (without process), and notability criteria is still not met (there is no secondary source celebrating the passing of this event), I think this "keep" was further in error. If Wikipedia starts reporting every little commercial event in which 8,000 people participate, it will get full pretty quickly. Thanks!--Cerejota 06:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] What is your problem Cerejota? The old article did not include the references the new and independently created one does (it could not have, because the conference got only the attention by the larger and more established media after it was deleted the last time). Multiple editors in good standing acknowledged the quality of the sources and the notability of the article. All your arguments made in the AfD discussion were either addressed (you might noticed the addition of more and better reliable sources and the removal of less reliable ones) or proven incorrect (e.g. your statement about the reliability of blogs as sources). After you saw this happen, did you start with your ridicules COI allegations against me. I have to wonder if COI applies to you in a different sense. You seem to want to be "right" at all cost, no matter what that you became unable to see what is actually going on and to stop for a moment to consider the option that you might be wrong this time. I have not looked at the first AfD for the article, which is for me completely irrelevant, because that was over one year ago and I was not involved with it at all. If you were participating in that discussion back then, you might have been right, fine, but that does not mean that things do not change. I find your behavior very disruptive and I would like to spend my time at Wikipedia for more productive and constructive things. I don't know Wikipedia well enough to know, why there is no reference to the AfD discussion anywhere in the article or its talk page and why there is a deletion review for an article that was not deleted. That's something new for me, but I guess I will have to spend the time to figure that one out. Use your energy for something good, for example improving the article, change some of the wording you consider "advertising" or create new articles or expand and improve other articles you prefer. Thank you. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 10:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Okay, figured it out with the review. I also checked the old AfD. Thanks for the link. You do not want to compare that previous AfD with the detail and participation of the last one, don't you? If I misunderstood you there, please let me know. Anyhow, I added the "oldafdfull" template to the article's talk page for future reference. I added it for both AfDs. Other editors will might find it helpful in the future. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 10:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for your long personal attack. I am sure that in your mind it is very helpful. However, I remain convinced that the lack of secondary sources that establish notability as per WP:CORP is problematic. And I do not edit the article because I have no interest in engaging in an edit war: my edits would consist in removing all press release material as primary sources. I just want the community to express their opinion that WP:CORP is dead letter, and that two minor re-workings of press releases as filler along with primary sources of the worse kind constitute acceptable wikipedia content. It does count as a surprise, however, if that is the case, so be it. WP:CORP requires secondary source verifiability, and none is provided. Thanks!--Cerejota 01:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Admin closed properly. If you feel the article still should be deleted nominate it again in a couple of weeks and address your concerns there. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - the article has a variety of secondary sources which are considered sufficiently "authoritative" for the purposes of commenting on web businesses. I see nothing wrong with them, nor did the large majority of AfD participants. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse admin closure. I'm not sure what the vendetta is that Cerejota has here, but s/he is bordering upon tendentious editing at this point and needs to WP:CHILL. Please note that I am the person who nominated this for deletion after it was improperly listed for speedy deletion (the new article was not a repost of previously deleted content). Although WP:AFD is not a preferred venue for cleaning up articles, I will say that this one surely benefited from it and I fully support the outcome. RFerreira 01:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] I'd say his "vendetta" is an anti-spam "vendetta", especially since it's still pretty much indistinguishable from such. --Calton \| Talk 05:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] I appreciate your understanding of the matter. This is not about the involved editor or the corporation, but about stopping spam. Have any of you actually bothered to read the article? Thanks!--Cerejota 01:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Admin interpreted the discussion correctly. And I agree with the above. I'm not sure what the vendetta is that Cerejota has here, but s/he is bordering upon tendentious editing at this point and needs to WP:CHILL. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 05:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse close view - the consensus was clear and the admin closed correctly. Bridgeplayer 03:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. Little sign of real-world notice or impact, ludicrously thin sourcing -- despite months of demands -- and overwhelmingly spammy content makes me wonder how this was kept in the first place, especially given how many of the "keep" votes seem to be essentially faith-based or blinded by the pure number of references rather than their actual quality. --Calton \| Talk 05:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Yes the community is endorsing spam if this is not deleted. There are no secondary sources for notability and/or verifiability. And I can't understand how WP:IAR applies in this case. Thanks!--Cerejota 13:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment - I suggest editors examine older versions of the article before judging its merits. Editors, in particular Cerejota, seem to have worked very hard to add obtrusive templates, tag trivial claims, remove material where possible, and so on. Loosely speaking, the edits have been defensible in terms of policy, but I think the blemishes have been exaggerated in a rather POV fashion. I'll work on cleaning up the article in the mean time. — xDanielx ^T/_C 07:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure but relist or delete anyway, I don't believe the closing admin abused discretion. At the same time, however, this seems to be one of these deceptive articles in which an imposing-looking list of "sources" is presented. Really, most of those are articles about online trade shows in general, mentioning this specific site only in passing, or are reprinted press releases or blurbs. None are substantial enough to support an article, even put together. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] I am sorry if I am understood as thinking the admin did a closure against policy. I must state that I think he acted entirely within the discretion of an admin to do so, and didn't violate policy himself. However, I fully agree with your comments: the article is a walking policy violation, and is spam. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Seraphim, as written there may be some POV issues and promotion, but that is not relevant to the determination of whether or not a topic is notable. Notability is not a judgement as to the quality of the article, but the suitability of the topic for inclusion. Being noticed in mainstream media fits the definition of notability at both WP:CORP and WP:N, which are notability/inclusion guidelines -- not pertiennt to content. Improving the quality of content is another issue not pertinent to AfD, since poor content is not a specific reason for deletion. --Kevin Murray 16:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Keep. This is no more "spam" than any of ther other hundreds of articles in Category:Trade shows. The only difference being that unlike the vast majority of all the others, this one actually contains a decent set of reliable third party sources in addition to the primary ones. --Sodium N4 06:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Keep This discussion has been brought to the talk page of WP:CORP, by the nominator of this review. I looked further into the issues and feel the article meets the standards for CORP, which are not meant to be zealously rigorous. There seems to be a peculiar agenda here making a mountain out of a molehill. --Kevin Murray 16:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

eComXpo – Keep closure endorsed. – Xoloz 04:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

In spite of the majority of editors supporting "keep", this article is in clear violation of the notability criteria required by WP:CORP and of the WP:SOAPBOX prohibition against advertisements. This is not a vote, and the closing admin should have weighted policy-based arguments, and not simple "keeps", and if he did weight policy, then I believe he erred Two re-publications of press releases as filler, corporation blogs, and self-published press releases are not reliable sources for purposes of WP:CORP notability. --Cerejota 04:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, The original, successful, AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EComXpo was clear on the lack of notability, and the editors set forth that the criteria.

Since in effect that AfD was overturned (without process), and notability criteria is still not met (there is no secondary source celebrating the passing of this event), I think this "keep" was further in error. If Wikipedia starts reporting every little commercial event in which 8,000 people participate, it will get full pretty quickly. Thanks!--Cerejota 06:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is your problem Cerejota? The old article did not include the references the new and independently created one does (it could not have, because the conference got only the attention by the larger and more established media after it was deleted the last time). Multiple editors in good standing acknowledged the quality of the sources and the notability of the article. All your arguments made in the AfD discussion were either addressed (you might noticed the addition of more and better reliable sources and the removal of less reliable ones) or proven incorrect (e.g. your statement about the reliability of blogs as sources). After you saw this happen, did you start with your ridicules COI allegations against me. I have to wonder if COI applies to you in a different sense. You seem to want to be "right" at all cost, no matter what that you became unable to see what is actually going on and to stop for a moment to consider the option that you might be wrong this time. I have not looked at the first AfD for the article, which is for me completely irrelevant, because that was over one year ago and I was not involved with it at all. If you were participating in that discussion back then, you might have been right, fine, but that does not mean that things do not change. I find your behavior very disruptive and I would like to spend my time at Wikipedia for more productive and constructive things. I don't know Wikipedia well enough to know, why there is no reference to the AfD discussion anywhere in the article or its talk page and why there is a deletion review for an article that was not deleted. That's something new for me, but I guess I will have to spend the time to figure that one out. Use your energy for something good, for example improving the article, change some of the wording you consider "advertising" or create new articles or expand and improve other articles you prefer. Thank you. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 10:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, figured it out with the review. I also checked the old AfD. Thanks for the link. You do not want to compare that previous AfD with the detail and participation of the last one, don't you? If I misunderstood you there, please let me know. Anyhow, I added the "oldafdfull" template to the article's talk page for future reference. I added it for both AfDs. Other editors will might find it helpful in the future. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 10:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your long personal attack. I am sure that in your mind it is very helpful. However, I remain convinced that the lack of secondary sources that establish notability as per WP:CORP is problematic. And I do not edit the article because I have no interest in engaging in an edit war: my edits would consist in removing all press release material as primary sources. I just want the community to express their opinion that WP:CORP is dead letter, and that two minor re-workings of press releases as filler along with primary sources of the worse kind constitute acceptable wikipedia content. It does count as a surprise, however, if that is the case, so be it. WP:CORP requires secondary source verifiability, and none is provided. Thanks!--Cerejota 01:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Admin closed properly. If you feel the article still should be deleted nominate it again in a couple of weeks and address your concerns there. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - the article has a variety of secondary sources which are considered sufficiently "authoritative" for the purposes of commenting on web businesses. I see nothing wrong with them, nor did the large majority of AfD participants. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse admin closure. I'm not sure what the vendetta is that Cerejota has here, but s/he is bordering upon tendentious editing at this point and needs to WP:CHILL. Please note that I am the person who nominated this for deletion after it was improperly listed for speedy deletion (the new article was not a repost of previously deleted content). Although WP:AFD is not a preferred venue for cleaning up articles, I will say that this one surely benefited from it and I fully support the outcome. RFerreira 01:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say his "vendetta" is an anti-spam "vendetta", especially since it's still pretty much indistinguishable from such. --Calton | Talk 05:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your understanding of the matter. This is not about the involved editor or the corporation, but about stopping spam. Have any of you actually bothered to read the article? Thanks!--Cerejota 01:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Admin interpreted the discussion correctly. And I agree with the above. I'm not sure what the vendetta is that Cerejota has here, but s/he is bordering upon tendentious editing at this point and needs to WP:CHILL. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 05:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close view - the consensus was clear and the admin closed correctly. Bridgeplayer 03:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Little sign of real-world notice or impact, ludicrously thin sourcing -- despite months of demands -- and overwhelmingly spammy content makes me wonder how this was kept in the first place, especially given how many of the "keep" votes seem to be essentially faith-based or blinded by the pure number of references rather than their actual quality. --Calton | Talk 05:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the community is endorsing spam if this is not deleted. There are no secondary sources for notability and/or verifiability. And I can't understand how WP:IAR applies in this case. Thanks!--Cerejota 13:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I suggest editors examine older versions of the article before judging its merits. Editors, in particular Cerejota, seem to have worked very hard to add obtrusive templates, tag trivial claims, remove material where possible, and so on. Loosely speaking, the edits have been defensible in terms of policy, but I think the blemishes have been exaggerated in a rather POV fashion. I'll work on cleaning up the article in the mean time. — xDanielx ^T/_C 07:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure but relist or delete anyway, I don't believe the closing admin abused discretion. At the same time, however, this seems to be one of these deceptive articles in which an imposing-looking list of "sources" is presented. Really, most of those are articles about online trade shows in general, mentioning this specific site only in passing, or are reprinted press releases or blurbs. None are substantial enough to support an article, even put together. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if I am understood as thinking the admin did a closure against policy. I must state that I think he acted entirely within the discretion of an admin to do so, and didn't violate policy himself. However, I fully agree with your comments: the article is a walking policy violation, and is spam. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphim, as written there may be some POV issues and promotion, but that is not relevant to the determination of whether or not a topic is notable. Notability is not a judgement as to the quality of the article, but the suitability of the topic for inclusion. Being noticed in mainstream media fits the definition of notability at both WP:CORP and WP:N, which are notability/inclusion guidelines -- not pertiennt to content. Improving the quality of content is another issue not pertinent to AfD, since poor content is not a specific reason for deletion. --Kevin Murray 16:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Keep. This is no more "spam" than any of ther other hundreds of articles in Category:Trade shows. The only difference being that unlike the vast majority of all the others, this one actually contains a decent set of reliable third party sources in addition to the primary ones. --Sodium N4 06:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Keep This discussion has been brought to the talk page of WP:CORP, by the nominator of this review. I looked further into the issues and feel the article meets the standards for CORP, which are not meant to be zealously rigorous. There seems to be a peculiar agenda here making a mountain out of a molehill. --Kevin Murray 16:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.