Off The Chart Radio – deletion endorsed, without prejudice against the creation of a sourced article – GRBerry 01:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Off The Chart Radio (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`AfD`)` I believe this article has good scope to be made into an encyclopedic entry. When this was deleted I was in the middle of adding to the page to make it more understandable to people who had never heard of the station. What I needed were comments and help so I added the "hang on" tag. The page was deleted nevertheless because of a previous AFD. I have improved the page substantialy from when the page was deleted back at the end of 2005 (which you can see by pressing the Afd button above). Too make sure that this page does comply with the Wikipedia rules infull I would appreciate it if maybe some other person could help me out. Leighlast 18:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion, new version still attributed no reliable sources. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. The article should not be re-instated unless it meets notability guidelines per WP:WEB's central criteria, and sources are provided to prove the notability. RJASE1 ^Talk 18:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Off The Chart Radio – deletion endorsed, without prejudice against the creation of a sourced article – GRBerry 01:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I believe this article has good scope to be made into an encyclopedic entry. When this was deleted I was in the middle of adding to the page to make it more understandable to people who had never heard of the station. What I needed were comments and help so I added the "hang on" tag. The page was deleted nevertheless because of a previous AFD. I have improved the page substantialy from when the page was deleted back at the end of 2005 (which you can see by pressing the Afd button above). Too make sure that this page does comply with the Wikipedia rules infull I would appreciate it if maybe some other person could help me out. Leighlast 18:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, new version still attributed no reliable sources. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The article should not be re-instated unless it meets notability guidelines per WP:WEB's central criteria, and sources are provided to prove the notability. RJASE1 ^Talk 18:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Worldcon Guests of Honor – close undone by non-admin closer to be closed by an admin; he will repopulate the category if the final closure is to keep – GRBerry 18:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Worldcon Guests of Honor (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) `(`restore`\|`AfD`)` majority in favor of Keep Avt tor 17:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Restore per nom. Six votes to Keep, with rationales; only five votes to Delete. Either an error on the closing admin's part, or they simply decided to ignore consensus and make an arbitrary decision. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Nolo contendere. Last time I checked, VfD was no longer active, and closers weren't expected to count votes. Arguments from overcategorization seemed more convincing than those based on the deep significance of fandom. Still, procedurally speaking this DRV unnecessary, unless someone made me an admin without my knowledge or consent. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] No vote because I don't know how to weigh Angus's policy argument when there were more Keep votes than Delete votes in the CfD debate. Also I don't know the rules that might apply when non-admins try to close debates in the 'delete' case. (The 'keep' case is accepted). EdJohnston 18:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Category:Worldcon Guests of Honor – close undone by non-admin closer to be closed by an admin; he will repopulate the category if the final closure is to keep – GRBerry 18:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

majority in favor of Keep Avt tor 17:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore per nom. Six votes to Keep, with rationales; only five votes to Delete. Either an error on the closing admin's part, or they simply decided to ignore consensus and make an arbitrary decision. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nolo contendere. Last time I checked, VfD was no longer active, and closers weren't expected to count votes. Arguments from overcategorization seemed more convincing than those based on the deep significance of fandom. Still, procedurally speaking this DRV unnecessary, unless someone made me an admin without my knowledge or consent. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No vote because I don't know how to weigh Angus's policy argument when there were more Keep votes than Delete votes in the CfD debate. Also I don't know the rules that might apply when non-admins try to close debates in the 'delete' case. (The 'keep' case is accepted). EdJohnston 18:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bonney Eberndu – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 01:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bonney Eberndu (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`AfD`)` This AfD was closed with only 5 Delete votes to 3 Keep votes, not really enough to establish consensus. The subject of the article meets the requirements of WP:BIO; four separate news stories about him appeared in the national UK media (The Times, The Guardian, the BBC), therefore constituting multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources, which is the primary notability criterion. Just because some users made a subjective judgement that the crime is not "important" (which basically amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT) is not a reason for ignoring established policy. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 14:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion: Nobody's disputing that he exists. We need non-trivial sources to have a bio, and those sources are quite trivial. This was already discussed. Friday (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment - The policy does not refer to non-trivial sources, but to non-trivial coverage, i.e. it must be more than a passing mention. All four of these articles, in the major news media, were entirely about this man and his crime. Your statement that "those sources are quite trivial" is completely subjective. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Alright then, I worded my statement poorly. This was trivial coverage. Friday (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] So how can four articles solely about the man and his crime be regarded as "trivial coverage"? What definition of "trivial" are you using exactly? Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Additional Comment - I just wanted to add that I was not the original creator of this article. Although I contributed to it significantly, that was after it was nominated at AfD; I was aiming to save it from deletion. So I have no axe to grind here. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. Consensus was divined correctly, also worth pointing out that only one of the news stories is attributable (the BBC News article), as there is no proof that the other sources relate to this person and their inclusion violated WP:BLP. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. While it is reasonable to argue that the 5 Delete votes to 3 Keep votes was not really enough to establish consensus, the delete outcome of the deletion debate seems correct since the majority was focused on notability. Also, no significant new information has come to light since the deletion. Thus, I endorse the deletion. I looked over the cited references and they did not seem to probe into Mr. Eberndu's background, which is what may have been needed to build the article. While the importance/significance of the subject was clear from the article, there does not seem to be sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about the topic at this time. -- Jreferee 06:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure. Deletion discussions are not votes. This was within appropriate admin discretion and in accordance with the principles of WP:NOT (and in particular, in line with the concerns currently being expressed at WP:NOTNEWS). Rossami (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Bonney Eberndu – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 01:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This AfD was closed with only 5 Delete votes to 3 Keep votes, not really enough to establish consensus. The subject of the article meets the requirements of WP:BIO; four separate news stories about him appeared in the national UK media (The Times, The Guardian, the BBC), therefore constituting multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources, which is the primary notability criterion. Just because some users made a subjective judgement that the crime is not "important" (which basically amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT) is not a reason for ignoring established policy. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 14:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion: Nobody's disputing that he exists. We need non-trivial sources to have a bio, and those sources are quite trivial. This was already discussed. Friday (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The policy does not refer to non-trivial sources, but to non-trivial coverage, i.e. it must be more than a passing mention. All four of these articles, in the major news media, were entirely about this man and his crime. Your statement that "those sources are quite trivial" is completely subjective. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alright then, I worded my statement poorly. This was trivial coverage. Friday (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So how can four articles solely about the man and his crime be regarded as "trivial coverage"? What definition of "trivial" are you using exactly? Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment - I just wanted to add that I was not the original creator of this article. Although I contributed to it significantly, that was after it was nominated at AfD; I was aiming to save it from deletion. So I have no axe to grind here. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Consensus was divined correctly, also worth pointing out that only one of the news stories is attributable (the BBC News article), as there is no proof that the other sources relate to this person and their inclusion violated WP:BLP. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. While it is reasonable to argue that the 5 Delete votes to 3 Keep votes was not really enough to establish consensus, the delete outcome of the deletion debate seems correct since the majority was focused on notability. Also, no significant new information has come to light since the deletion. Thus, I endorse the deletion. I looked over the cited references and they did not seem to probe into Mr. Eberndu's background, which is what may have been needed to build the article. While the importance/significance of the subject was clear from the article, there does not seem to be sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about the topic at this time. -- Jreferee 06:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Deletion discussions are not votes. This was within appropriate admin discretion and in accordance with the principles of WP:NOT (and in particular, in line with the concerns currently being expressed at WP:NOTNEWS). Rossami (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unofficial St. Patrick's Day – deletion narrowly endorsed – GRBerry 01:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Unofficial St. Patrick's Day (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`AfD`)` I was previously unaware of the discussion; the grounds for deletion seem to rest on an prior inability to establish notability and doubt regarding the Daily Illini's trustworthiness as a source. I agree that Wikipedia is not for things someone made up in school, but note that a planned event must have been conceived by someone, and many planned events are included in Wikipedia. This event has been researched and published; the content is verifiable and citable. On the AfD page, Dual_Freq called the Daily Illini into question, but note that this is not the only source of information about the subject. Buzz article giving background. Daily Illini article on city council ordinance. Daily Illini article on student death. Inside Illinois article, issued by uiuc.edu. Sports Illustrated report. News-Gazette article. Daily Egyptian column on event's influence on Carbondale, Illinois, 200 miles south of Champaign. University of Illinois Senate Resolution against the event. WCFN-TV. Strangerer (Talk) 05:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion, it's still a valid G4. --Core desat 07:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment it's a G4 because it was deleted through AfD. Isn't this where you come to overturn an AfD, not so much a speedy? Bear in mind that I did protect the page from recreation because there were 2 copies of it on WP and it had a prior AfD. See Wikipedia:Protected titles/March 2007. I'm taking no stance on this. James086 ^Talk 09:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse bot original AfD and speedy G4. WP:NFT appears to cover this just nicely. Guy (Help!) 09:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Question: I am not clear on why you cited WP:NFT. The content is verifiable and is not original research. Information about it has been researched and published; reliable sources are available for this topic. This page isn't on the same level as something like "Hey me and Johnny at Harrison Middle School like to wear armbands lol." For examples, see other college-related pages such as Primal Scream (Harvard), Aggie Bonfire, or traditions pages like Carnegie Mellon University traditions, Dartmouth College traditions, and University of Alabama traditions. We could follow the example of the pages above with an article called "University of Illinois traditions", but that would not be as notable or as important as a page about Unofficial Saint Patrick's Day. I admit that I have not seen the content of the page in question and it is possible it was deleted because it wasn't written properly. I am not the author(s?). The page can be written with verifiable sources that establish it as notable. Would you prefer that the information were merged onto another page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Strangerer (talk • contribs) 10:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply] The principal difference is that they have references, and consist of more than just going out on the town on St. Patrick's Day, which is pretty much indistinguishable from going out on the town on any other day, or any other group's regular St. Patrick's Day binge. Guy (Help!) 12:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion - coverage in a university newspaper does not constitute multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources to establish notability. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn And Sports Illustrated (admittedly a trivial mention, but the other two aren't), the Daily Egyptian, and Buzz aren't either? --Random832 20:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion - using a made up holiday as excuse for college students to get drunk / cause trouble is not notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. At most its a non-notable local phenomenon. --Dual Freq 00:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn The News-Gazette has had numerous articles every year regarding this event. It is significant in Champaign-Urbana. I was at a local restaurant this evening and 50% of the customers were wearing bright green clothing and hats. According to the News-Gazette and radio reports on WILL AM 580, the mayor of Champaign, Jerry Schweighart was given emergency powers this weekend to keep the peace.--User Talk:eric ferguson 2 March 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.199.14.99 (talk • contribs) 04:34, March 3, 2007 (UTC) Overturn: In addition to the several sources in addition to the Daily Illini, this event has become an annual major public safety and educational mission issue. The university has sent notification to parents of undergraduate students describing the event and encouraging them to talk to their students about it. It is not at all unreasonable that someone faced with this would seek more information about the event. I believe by this criterial, along with avaiability of reputable sources qualifies it for inclusion in WP. -- Ejeffrey 06:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply] Overturn. The sources provided can establish the notability of the phenomenon (which was the primary argument for deletion). Just because the even is an "unofficial university student holiday" does not make it inherently non-notable despite the existence of multiple external references. -- Black Falcon 17:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure of the AFD and the subsequent redeletions. The sources given above do not rise to the level that I consider to be "non-trivial" coverage. The article boiled down to "college kids find an excuse to drink, some drink too much and the local townsfolk get upset". How is this any different from every other college campus in the US? By the way, the references cited above do not verify most of the deleted content. Rossami (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Unofficial St. Patrick's Day – deletion narrowly endorsed – GRBerry 01:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I was previously unaware of the discussion; the grounds for deletion seem to rest on an prior inability to establish notability and doubt regarding the Daily Illini's trustworthiness as a source. I agree that Wikipedia is not for things someone made up in school, but note that a planned event must have been conceived by someone, and many planned events are included in Wikipedia. This event has been researched and published; the content is verifiable and citable. On the AfD page, Dual_Freq called the Daily Illini into question, but note that this is not the only source of information about the subject. Buzz article giving background. Daily Illini article on city council ordinance. Daily Illini article on student death. Inside Illinois article, issued by uiuc.edu. Sports Illustrated report. News-Gazette article. Daily Egyptian column on event's influence on Carbondale, Illinois, 200 miles south of Champaign. University of Illinois Senate Resolution against the event. WCFN-TV. Strangerer (Talk) 05:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, it's still a valid G4. --Core desat 07:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it's a G4 because it was deleted through AfD. Isn't this where you come to overturn an AfD, not so much a speedy? Bear in mind that I did protect the page from recreation because there were 2 copies of it on WP and it had a prior AfD. See Wikipedia:Protected titles/March 2007. I'm taking no stance on this. James086 ^Talk 09:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse bot original AfD and speedy G4. WP:NFT appears to cover this just nicely. Guy (Help!) 09:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: I am not clear on why you cited WP:NFT. The content is verifiable and is not original research. Information about it has been researched and published; reliable sources are available for this topic. This page isn't on the same level as something like "Hey me and Johnny at Harrison Middle School like to wear armbands lol." For examples, see other college-related pages such as Primal Scream (Harvard), Aggie Bonfire, or traditions pages like Carnegie Mellon University traditions, Dartmouth College traditions, and University of Alabama traditions. We could follow the example of the pages above with an article called "University of Illinois traditions", but that would not be as notable or as important as a page about Unofficial Saint Patrick's Day. I admit that I have not seen the content of the page in question and it is possible it was deleted because it wasn't written properly. I am not the author(s?). The page can be written with verifiable sources that establish it as notable. Would you prefer that the information were merged onto another page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Strangerer (talk • contribs) 10:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The principal difference is that they have references, and consist of more than just going out on the town on St. Patrick's Day, which is pretty much indistinguishable from going out on the town on any other day, or any other group's regular St. Patrick's Day binge. Guy (Help!) 12:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - coverage in a university newspaper does not constitute multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources to establish notability. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn And Sports Illustrated (admittedly a trivial mention, but the other two aren't), the Daily Egyptian, and Buzz aren't either? --Random832 20:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - using a made up holiday as excuse for college students to get drunk / cause trouble is not notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. At most its a non-notable local phenomenon. --Dual Freq 00:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The News-Gazette has had numerous articles every year regarding this event. It is significant in Champaign-Urbana. I was at a local restaurant this evening and 50% of the customers were wearing bright green clothing and hats. According to the News-Gazette and radio reports on WILL AM 580, the mayor of Champaign, Jerry Schweighart was given emergency powers this weekend to keep the peace.--User Talk:eric ferguson 2 March 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.199.14.99 (talk • contribs) 04:34, March 3, 2007 (UTC)
Overturn: In addition to the several sources in addition to the Daily Illini, this event has become an annual major public safety and educational mission issue. The university has sent notification to parents of undergraduate students describing the event and encouraging them to talk to their students about it. It is not at all unreasonable that someone faced with this would seek more information about the event. I believe by this criterial, along with avaiability of reputable sources qualifies it for inclusion in WP. -- Ejeffrey 06:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Overturn. The sources provided can establish the notability of the phenomenon (which was the primary argument for deletion). Just because the even is an "unofficial university student holiday" does not make it inherently non-notable despite the existence of multiple external references. -- Black Falcon 17:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure of the AFD and the subsequent redeletions. The sources given above do not rise to the level that I consider to be "non-trivial" coverage. The article boiled down to "college kids find an excuse to drink, some drink too much and the local townsfolk get upset". How is this any different from every other college campus in the US?
By the way, the references cited above do not verify most of the deleted content. Rossami (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Twitter – deletion endorsed with creation of a new article from additional sources found here encouraged – GRBerry 01:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Twitter (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`AfD`)` Article is not spam; my contribution log is long and clearly positive and the stub was written in good faith. Topic is notable (no G7 violation) - it has been covered by Wired News, the San Francisco Chronicle, and This Week in Tech. A Google search for "Twitter" turns up seven million results, with the top five pages talking about the service and not the common use of the word. Baricom 00:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. The article made no claim to notability. Stating that it's a website is not a claim to notability, and that's pretty much all it said. Guy (Help!) 09:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] comment If your sources are sufficient to write a real article (that asserts notability, cites sources, etc), then write one. DRV is for requesting undeletion, not requesting permission to make an article except in cases of salted articles. --20:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC) However, your wired news article barely mentions it at all. --Random832 20:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment. The article was speedy deleted as spam (WP:CSD#G11?) on 27 February 2007 by Luigi30 and on 18 February 2007 for not asserting the importance or significance of its subject WP:CSD#A7 by Kafziel. The topic appears to meet notability, see (i) Rushfield, Richard (December 10, 2006) Los Angeles Times The web, etc.; Web scout. Section: Sunday Calendar; Page 20; (ii) Turnbull, Giles. (December 5, 2006) Birmingham Post Make a complete Twit of yourself . . . and reap the benefits. Section: Business; Page 22; (iii) The Times (December 12, 2006) twitter.com ;The click;Tuesday. Section: Features; Page 2; (iv) Rushfield, Richard. (December 28, 2006) Los Angeles Times On the Web, Real Time at the Same Time.; (v) Lileks, James. (January 27, 2007) Star Tribune Do you Twitter? You will. Section:Source; Page 2E. However, I cannot see the original article to review the outcome of the speedy deletion. Since two different administrators speedy deleted the article at different times, it may be better to rewrite the article from scratch using the above sources. - Jreferee 07:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Twitter – deletion endorsed with creation of a new article from additional sources found here encouraged – GRBerry 01:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article is not spam; my contribution log is long and clearly positive and the stub was written in good faith. Topic is notable (no G7 violation) - it has been covered by Wired News, the San Francisco Chronicle, and This Week in Tech. A Google search for "Twitter" turns up seven million results, with the top five pages talking about the service and not the common use of the word. Baricom 00:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. The article made no claim to notability. Stating that it's a website is not a claim to notability, and that's pretty much all it said. Guy (Help!) 09:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment If your sources are sufficient to write a real article (that asserts notability, cites sources, etc), then write one. DRV is for requesting undeletion, not requesting permission to make an article except in cases of salted articles. --20:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC) However, your wired news article barely mentions it at all. --Random832 20:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article was speedy deleted as spam (WP:CSD#G11?) on 27 February 2007 by Luigi30 and on 18 February 2007 for not asserting the importance or significance of its subject WP:CSD#A7 by Kafziel. The topic appears to meet notability, see (i) Rushfield, Richard (December 10, 2006) Los Angeles Times The web, etc.; Web scout. Section: Sunday Calendar; Page 20; (ii) Turnbull, Giles. (December 5, 2006) Birmingham Post Make a complete Twit of yourself . . . and reap the benefits. Section: Business; Page 22; (iii) The Times (December 12, 2006) twitter.com ;The click;Tuesday. Section: Features; Page 2; (iv) Rushfield, Richard. (December 28, 2006) Los Angeles Times On the Web, Real Time at the Same Time.; (v) Lileks, James. (January 27, 2007) Star Tribune Do you Twitter? You will. Section:Source; Page 2E. However, I cannot see the original article to review the outcome of the speedy deletion. Since two different administrators speedy deleted the article at different times, it may be better to rewrite the article from scratch using the above sources. - Jreferee 07:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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