Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 24

< October 23	October 25 >

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 October)

24 October 2006

PAEEK

I was just trying to add some info on this article and found it had been deleted yesterday by User:UtherSRG. The administrator argued that it was not notable. I would have thought that a team that has won the top basketball league of its country thrice (in this case in the early 70’s) [1] would be considered notable. Furthermore, this team has taken part in European leagues as a result of its home success and qualification. [2] It is a household name in Cyprus. OK, I will agree, It has since fallen on hard times and now lingers in the 3rd division but why exclude teams with a history? (would we be deleting Chelsea F.C. in 10 years if they dropped to Division 3 of the English Football league?) If teams such as the Wolves [3] (with no past trophies or European appearances) have a wikipedia entry then I argue that teams with trophies and an established international presence such as PAEEK deserve to be included. The only argument against would be that PAEEK comes from a smaller country; however, I have not noticed any notability criteria stating country of origin as a criterion of non-notability.StephP 21:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SkyNET Telesystems and CyberDyne IP systems

Would respectfully request that these two pages be relisted, they were deleted for reasons of 1) not being relevant, and 2) due to the name of the CEO of both companies being the same. As to the relevance issue, both companies are associated with the VoIP industry: The page postings of SkyNET Telesystems and of CyberDyne IP Systems were both in the process of having more historical data added to them when they were deleted. Additionally, these two pages had relevant data on a same level as that of Packet8 and SunRocket, which are still listed. Once relisted, both pages WILL have additional historical data added to them.

On the point of Mr. Hitchens being listed as the CEO of both companies in the Key People area of the page, and somehow being a conflict of interest, it should be noted that if Virgin Atlantic and Virgin Mobile are checked, Sir Richard Branson is listed as a Key Person on both postings.....not a conflict of interest there?

So, please relist these pages. Changes will be made to bring them more in line with what is deemed a proper listing.

Anarchopedia

Come on! what's going on here? With approaching 100,000 Google hits Anarchopedia is notable. I see absolutely no reason for this deleted page to be protected. Continued protection says all the wrong things about Wikipedia. So get it unprotected and I'll write a (short) article about Anarchopedia. Arcturus 18:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchopedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarchopedia, last deleted by Xoloz as a repost on 10/2/06. --W.marsh 19:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarchopedia 3rd nomination appears to be the most recent AFD, closed by Xoloz on 8/15/06. (There also was a no consensus second nomination.) GRBerry 21:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion Article subject already went through successful afd nom plus apparently 2 deletion reviews which concluded with supporting the deletion verdict. Compelling new evidence needs to be introduced to reopen the issue. Googling for Anarchopedia produces a lot of noise, but it seems very difficult to find anything authoritative as a source. Single hit in Factiva database - from a brief mention in an Irish Times column discussing the Los Angeles Times' 2005 ill-fated and short-lived "wikitorial" experiment. (And the column inaccurately uses Anarchopedia as one example of "many" Wikipedia fork projects) Bwithh 19:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion valid AfD. Who cares how many Google hits there are when there are only [128 unique Google hits]. Plus all the usual: WP:WEB, WP:V, lack of reliable sources, etc. With the AfD and previous DRVs, consensus is clear. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, Google hits mean absolutely nothing in terms of notability. No reason presented to overturn AfD. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion If the nominator believes that an article can now be written that meets WP:WEB based on independent coverage in sources that meet our standards for reliability, they are encouraged to do so in their userspace and propose that article here. There is too much unpalatable history here for me to be comfortable unprotecting the article before seeing the new version. GRBerry 21:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. No additional arguments in favor. `'mikkanarxi 21:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ChaCha (search engine)

ChaCha (search engine) was put on AfD on September 6, less than a week after the launch of the website. The article was deleted, per WP:WEB. In the month and a half since the launch of the website, articles entirely about ChaCha's technology and concept have been published by ABC News, USA Today, and Wired among other publications (ChaCha press page). I think this establishes the notability of the service. -- goatasaur 17:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, no need to relist, although i'm not opposed to it. Meets WP:WEB/WP:CORP now if it didn't when it was AfD'd. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn / Undelete due to mainstream press coverage. Can't say I disagree with the AfD at the time though, since the website wasn't even a week old. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn AfD was valid at the time but I saw the thing on the Today Show about it so it passes WP:WEB now. Whispering 18:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete. An interesting idea, and covered by independent sources. `'mikkanarxi 21:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]