Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 13

ZGMF-X42S Destiny Gundam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD

)

History See

GRBerry 04:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse salt - There is no need to unsalt at present. The article should be created at
  WP:FICTION RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  What argument is there to keep it salted? --Farix (Talk) 23:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Unsalt - redirect to Cosmic Era Mobile Units and protect to stop recreation RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Unsalt per nom. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse salt Comparing this to Death Star or [[Starship Enterprise] is overstating the cultural importance of the subject. According to the logs, it's been deleted 5 times. It's got a high likelyhood of being re-created with the same type of article again. Ryan's solution is also acceptable to me. --Kunzite 00:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep protected - no objections to a protected redirect --
  Doc^g 01:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep protected I have no objection to a protected redirect, which since this has incoming links (and redirects) is better than protected deleted pages. This nomination offers no new information not considered in the prior deletion review. Should it be possible to write a new article that demonstrates notability, at this point that should be done on a user subpage and brought for review after the new article is created.
  GRBerry 04:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect protected per Ryan, sounds reasonable to me. -
  Mailer Diablo 08:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect protected per Mailer Diablo.
  Deletion! 14:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Unsalt. At the very least it should contain a redirect to Cosmic Era Mobile Units. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsalted redirect per nom. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 23:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a protected redirect - suggest using the talk page of the redirect to try and build an article that is in line with policy (which thus far has not been achieved in 5 attempts).
  ► 15:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep protected as a redirect if required, per above. Eusebeus 09:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Briefsism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This has been deleted several times as a hoax, and now locked from being re-created. It's real, there are sources verifying its existence, and it's notable (why would David Beckham be a well-known follower of it??). Also, it should go through AFD again. I have reliable sources that prove its notability and existence. Apoplexic Manager 20:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC) — Apoplexic Manager (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Endorse deletion - are there any reliable,
  verifiable external sources of information about this ... umm ... philosophy? --BigDT 21:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn - article's subject is noteworthy. --Highball15 21:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion Again, still, no change. Fan-1967 21:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - links to other AFDs in case anyone is interested -
  not for things made up in school one day. --BigDT 21:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn Briefsism is notable: look at the amount of famous people who follow this parody religion: David Beckham, Hilary Duff to mention a few. It was not made up in school one day, and has existed since 1991 in Great Britain. This should really go through the deletion process again. I can assure you it's not a joke, briefsism does exist - there's enough sources on it on various websites, notably the London School of Economics website. OK, speech over. Please just put it back for deletion again, full history and whatnot. --Apoplexic Manager 21:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, unless someone provides me with an exact link to a reliable source that gives non-trivial coverage. I don't care about assertions that this site or another has it somewhere; I have spent more time than I should have researching this. And why would I believe that it's notable because all these people follow it without sources saying that they actually do? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hybird_Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

-I was not trying to use wikipedia as a free advertising vehicle in any way. I was just trying to explain my company to anyone that uses Wikipedia and happens to search for my company. I am sorry if this doesn't work with you, but I was just trying to be polite. If you won't let me edit the article, please at least make it unblocked so that any future article writers can contribute to the article. I will not add anymore contributions to Wikipedia if that helps and I will also not re-open the article. I am the owner of the company and I am trying to tell everyone about it. Please let me explain my company's information.

• Endorse deletion - please see
  WP:CORP for Wikipedia's notability standards for corporations. Please see also the deletion log for this page - [2] - where five different administrators have deleted it. Thank you. --BigDT 20:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion - also see
  WP:COI for conflict of interest guidelines. In short, as a representative of the company, you are the last person who should create an article on it. -- Fan-1967 21:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion. So, you admit that you're basically trying to use Wikipedia as a free advertising vehicle? ColourBurst 21:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse almost all deletions where the nomination for DRV says "I am the owner of X" or "We request". -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per your own admitting that it's spam. JuJube 00:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Fails
  WP:SPAM, articles shouldn't be created about your own company RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion. A message to the person who sent this article to deletion review: there's a rule that we
  don't bite the newbies, so I feel duty-bound to explain to you how this works. The subjects of Wikipedia articles need to be notable, independently verifiable, and written from a neutral point of view. Your company is not notable enough for our standards if you're the only person who wants to write about it. The significance of your company is not independently verifiable or written from a neutral point of view if you're the person writing about it. That's what we intend by "Conflict of Interest." I wish you success so that, one day, your company becomes notable and will then deserve inclusion here. Until then, feel free to edit articles elsewhere on the site. YechielMan 05:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Carissa and Josephine O'Meara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

AFD was closed less than 24 hours before it was started, which is unfair as I believe there are people who would have voted to keep it. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You think? I don't. Endorse deletion. No substantive claim to notability. Guy (Help!) 19:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion As Calton has remarked on similar AFD's (tempted to add a Calton's law next to Geogre's): babies are not actors; they are remarkably realistic props. Fan-1967 19:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. AfD is not a vote, and acting in a bit role in one film does not notability make. ColourBurst 21:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. It doesn't matter how many people would have voted to keep it, they are obviously non-notable. And I doubt you could dredge up sources, anyway. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. DRV is about process, and actors simply do not meet the speedy deletion criteria. It is not "obvious" they are non-"notable," I'd in fact say the obvious. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Relist I'm in agreement with Jeff.
  WP:SNOW is not a valid reason to endorse quick closure of AfDs. JuJube 01:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion unless non-trivial coverage by independent reliable sources is shown. Among child actors, the ones on whom we can write useful encycloapedia articles are in the minority, due to the brevity of their current career and the lack of interesting things to say about them. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 05:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion There is nothing notable about these child actors apart from they played, at a very young age, the character of
  Courtney Mitchell, and this fact is already well-documented in that article. I think some of the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders (of which I occasionally look in on) can be a little, err, over-enthusiastic about adding and editing articles. Stephenb (Talk) 12:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn and relist. Regardless of the merits of the article, closing an AFD debate in slightly more than 22 hours, and without citing a Speedy criterion, appears out of process.Eludium-q36 20:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per
  WP:SNOW. This won't survive an AfD, so there's no purpose to take it back to one. If the solution is forgone, there's no reason to waste time on the process. This isn't a legal procedure, it's guidelines for Wikipedia. -- Kesh 04:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse Clearly fail guidelines. Relisting for a full AFD is a waste of time. Eusebeus 09:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balloon fetishism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD

)

Undelete Balloon Fetishism. The lack of 'scholarly research' on a under researched subject should not be a reason to delete an encyclopedia entry. The internet is full of commercial, public, and personal websites devoted to the topic of Balloon Fetishism. Here is several informative websites: http://www.deviantdesires.com/map/balloon.html http://www.answers.com/topic/balloon-fetishism

Here are numerous Balloon Fetish online communities (some straight and some gay):

http://balloonbuddies.com/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoysBalloonsandCondoms3/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/buddymenlooners/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BalloonPlaytime/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/balloonbangingboys/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MenBustingBIGBalloons/?yguid=201617095 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/menwithballoons/?yguid=201617095 Sonicyouth1 18:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Yes it should be, because it's not enough for something to be true, it must be
  reliable sources. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse unanimous AfD. Guy (Help!) 19:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - Afd was run correctly, no new information regarding
  veriability RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion. AfD by the book. I can come up with a more reliable source than the above; for some reason or other which I can't remember, balloon fetishism was mentioned on (the last season of?) Room 101 (TV series), and a clip of a film shown. Doesn't change anything though. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion No
  talk 20:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Sven Co-op (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This delete simply doesn't make sense Sven Co-op is one of the more popular mods for HL1, no more or less notable than any other. The AFD was a joke, "

(By the way, if articles aren't allowed a second deletion review, I'm sorry, could you tell me what to do next? Thank you. Thedreamdied 14:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Contact

n 16:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

What hahnchen said. Talk to Marphy and help get the sources integrated into the article, then open up the DRV (or just talk to an admin because I'm pretty sure with the sources they'll be happy to move it back). It's not that DRV isn't allowed multiple times, but you haven't really mentioned any new information since then. Notability is not popularity. ColourBurst 16:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the article was unsourced, but that doesnt make any of the information invalid or incorrect - anyone who has played the game knows that its fine. Why didn't the relevant editors simply tag it with an 'unsourced statements' tag and wait for someone to sort it out? Deleting it was unneccessary. Thedreamdied 21:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because no one participating in the AFD could be bothered to find sources, or believed that none could be found. It's going to get deleted. If its a relatively fringe subject such as this, you're going to need some secondary sources for it to survive and AFD. -

n 21:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse speedy deletion under G4 the new article is not substantialyl different because it didn't use any sources that are 1)
  GRBerry 04:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD

)

• Overturn, relist maybe, how someone decided that was a valid speedy I have no idea. People don't seem to understand that A7 is not asserting notability, instead of just not having it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral (leaning towards overturn and list on AfD), please tell us what the actual articles from NME and Guardian are so we can determine whether or not A7 was correct (A7 usually means nothing except that it didn't assert
  WP:MUSIC). ColourBurst 16:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Endorse deletion, now that I've seen the Guardian and NME "articles". The Guardian article is on myspace, not the band, only one paragraph on what the guitarist thinks myspace is doing to bands, nothing that says anything substantial about the band. NME article is a short blurb, which coupled with the lack of other sources means that A7 is probably justified. Wait till the band's broken out of myspace first. ColourBurst 21:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The article said that the band has not yet released their first single, from which I (as the deleting admin) inferred that the band does not meet
  WP:MUSIC. This is the Guardian article that mentions them in passing. This is what I get on NME. Anyway, I usually don't have problems with people overturning my admin actions, so go right ahead if you feel like it. Kusma (討論) 18:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Oh, they probably don't meet
    WP:MUSIC. But they might, which is why non-notability is explicitly not a speedy criterion. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Their first single is out this month, there is a possibility that a lot of people will be discovering the band over the next few months and search it on wikipedia to find out info about them, isn't that what wikipedia is about? Finding information?--Acertainromance 22:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, information which is already sourced. Not information that you think will be sourced at some point in the future when reliable sources discover it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would also like to add that the NME article was in the magazine, if I got a scan of that article would that be sourced as 'reliable'?--Acertainromance 22:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, I trust that the article exists. I also trust that it follows the lines ColourBurst said it did, which makes it useless for sourcing. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • So I should wait until other publications (such as Pitchfork) do reviews of their single then?--Acertainromance 22:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think so. It's possible there are reliable sources somewhere, but nobody seems to have them. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll try and get in contact with the band or check their forum or something to see if I come accross anything else--Acertainromance 22:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, found sources on burnburn.com, leedsmusicscene.org.uk, THIS IS FAKE DIY (which is pretty respected) and not one but TWO scans of TWO different NME articles both praising the band.

Edit: Also found out that they supported Metric (band) and as a result found a number of reviews on them including ones on BBC music.--Acertainromance 23:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion without prejudice. If they hit it big, then there will be no reason not to have an article, but right now the opposite is true. JuJube 01:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• But the animated band
  unsigned comment was added by HaruharaChroni (talk • contribs) 01:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC).[reply
  ]

Job for a Cowboy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

now almost mainstream Death band

This article has been deleted one year ago, because the band did not meet at the time the notability requirements of

• over 200,000 views on their myspace and over 100,000 friends [4]
• they are now on a big independent record label : Metal Blade Records
• they will do a very big tour in Europe in March / April 2007 (Job for a Cowboy is a Death Metal band) (see [5] here), and in big venues in Europe (Trabendo in Paris, Laiterie in Strasbourg, etc...) Hervegirod 12:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Web hits <> notability. Will tour <> have toured. Guy (Help!) 15:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, myspace <>
    reliable source. You must have had reviews in magazines if you're as good as you claim to be. ColourBurst 16:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Keep deleted, until someone comes up with
  WP:MUSIC. It's been through afd 3 times (here and here in addition to the one linked above), and deleted each time, and it's also been deleted a total of 27 times with different capitalizations. There's nothing said in the statement above that wasn't known in the latest afd. Please take the time to write a real article in your userspace before requesting undeletion, and preferably wait to see if their future tour will generate some press. Thanks. - Bobet 16:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Relist They need putting on, if you haven't heard of them by now, and are in to Death metal, then you don't really like death metal! Bobet, you want reliable sources... Official Website, their EP available on one of the biggest web stores, [http: //www.metal-observer.com/articles.php?lid=1&sid=1&id=10778 online album review] just search google, there is there lyrics & everything. Here's there page with their record company [6] and look at who else is/was signed to them, many great bands including Cradle of Filth, As I Lay Dying, Lamb of God, Manowar amongst many more. Think about it, should a band signed to a considerably large record label be classed as 'not famous enough' just because a couple of people who think they know metal don't know who they are, I think not. THEY ARE BIG, AND IT WOULD BE RIDICULOUS NOT TO HAVE THEM ON WIKIPEDIA!!! Asics^Talk 17:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Big? As in about to tour? That's big? May the good lord preserve us, then, from small bands. Guy (Help!) 19:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They have more than 60 dates on their current tour, from 13 January to April !! Hervegirod 01:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

] If they get put back on, there needs to be a "Criticism" section, as they are the butt of many a scenester's jokes, and wecamewithbrokenteeth has a song called "Job for a Brokeback"

• Endorse deletion, official websites are not independent, Amazon is not a source, and blogs and forums are not reliable. You must provide reliable sources. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist : myspace not reliable ? the band Arctic Monkeys became what they are now because of myspace for example. And about what is considered as a reliable source, the only important thing is to know if the band has enough notability. But OK. Here's a list of reviews of their last album Doom : sputnik music, metal coven, the music edge, [http: //www.metal-observer.com/articles.php?lid=1&sid=1&id=10778 metal-observer], Encyclopaedia Metallum, into-obscurity.com, absolute punk, decoy music, metal storm, the metal forge, blood chamber... and this is only some of the reviews, there are more of them, and also there are other sites for band biography, forums, and so on... So, I think there is enough reasons to undelete Hervegirod 01:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're wrong. It doesn't matter how notable something is if we have no good sources with which to write the article. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment
  Myspace not reliable. JuJube 01:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The number of views or friends is a fact, so this part must be reliable. Hervegirod 13:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Criterias for
  POV. Hervegirod 13:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Look, it's been in afd 3 times, and been repeatedly recreated with no indication of notability. While it might be possible to write a good article about it, that's never been done, so there really is nothing to undelete. Start an article in your userspace (eg.
    User:Hervegirod/Job for a Cowboy) and if it's good, it can be moved to the main namespace. Thanks. - Bobet 13:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • The first draft is finished Hervegirod 15:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• One person mentioned they needed to have reviews in magazines to be "famous" well when the page was removed not long back, an IP user left a comment saying they had been in 2 big magazines see here Asics^Talk 18:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• actually it was a registered user Davard Asics^Talk 18:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Vancouver/November 2006 (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Vancouver/November 2006|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The page was moved improperly. Instead of waiting for a sysop to delete to redirect, someone cut and pasted the page contents to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Vancouver/Archive/November 2006, destroying the page history -- Selmo ^(talk) 07:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the history (at the target article), don't think there's much else to see here. - Bobet 09:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Demented Cartoon Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This page had nothign wrong with it The Demented Cartoon Movie (2005, Brian Kendall) is a highly popular flash movie. The Wikipedia Article was full of information on the 30 minute flash based movie, incuding info from Brian Kendall himself. I was really sad to learn that it was taken down (possibly deleted), and that is why I am here. If an Admin can't undelete it completeley, I can understand tha,t but can one of you guys please give me a link to it? THANKS!

Avatarfan6666 03:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like it was deleted for being a sentence about nothing (a valid

A1), and later as a redirect to something that didn't exist, also valid. Nothing seems to be stopping you from making an actual article on it at this point, unless there's a separate deletion not listed here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The main page seems to have been The Demented Cartoon Movie, I've fixed the links above accordingly. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 04:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion unless new evidence or other reasoning is provided to overturn the AfD. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 04:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, AfD was valid and delete arguments based on sound reasoning. Guy (Help!) 15:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, AfD was valid and nothing's really changed since the last deletion review. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion easily fails
  WP:WEB and would never in a million years pass an AfD under our current verifiability standards. I suggest not nominating this again until reliable sources can be found. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Wild beasts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD

)

1. • Comment - a new proposed page can be viewed at
     WP:MUSIC in it RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
     ]

• Relist with new information. I suggest grabbing a source for the indie chart claim, that would more or less seal the deal if accurate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist additionally, direct citations for the "Critical acclaim" claims would give sufficient weight toward proving independent coverage.
  SkierRMH,08:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• No objection to relisting, but #17 on the Indie charts is not much of a claim to fame and BBC6 is hardly a major station. Guy (Help!) 15:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've now sourced in the guardian review of the band, having a bit of trouble finding a site with the independant music chart archives on, it was on the BBC radio 1 website, however this particular page is not archived by them, I'll keep working on it RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist if sources can be found for these new claims of notability. Sounds like they might pass WP:MUSIC now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - Guardian article and place on
  WP:MUSIC. Eludium-q36 20:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]