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

Notable and relevant, wikipedia-worthy Jeffmcneill ^{talk contribs} 20:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC) This article's deletion was discussed with the administrator NawlinWiki on their talk page, without reaching agreement. The administrator recommended starting this process. There does not appear to be clear information in terms of what would make this article notable. Please see discussion. I am open to supplementing the article, but I don't want to put in the effort if the article is only going to get deleted again. --Jeffmcneill ^{talk contribs} 20:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My suggestion is to wait. If you recreate the article now it would likely be deleted for the same reasons. What you likely need to do is wait for the game to get some coverage (if it gets some) to establish it as being notable, and then the result could come out quite differently. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess I'm not being clear on this. It seems to me that there has been enough coverage for notability, based on both the notability of the designer Justin Hall as well as following (and more).

• USC Interactive Media projects
• Cory Doctorow refers to PMOG in an interview by Kevin Kelly at BlizzCon, August 6, 2007
• Presented at the Virtual Goods Summit 2007
• O'Reilly Radar note by Nikolaj Nyholm
• Frank Gruber's blog
• Presented at Game Developers Conference 2007
• Featured in May, 2007 in Edge, the UK game developer's magazine
• Joi Ito and Justin Hall includes PMOG in a discussion at SXSW, March, 2007 (3pointD)

--Jeffmcneill ^{talk contribs} 05:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I just want to clarify that I am assuming that notable does not necessarily have to mean popular. There are many wonderful wikipedia articles which are about notable things, but aren't necessarily known by a large audience, yet still remains faithful to the mission of an up-to-date encyclopedia. --Jeffmcneill ^{talk contribs} 05:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted, work on it in userspace and wait for reliable secondary sources (that is, not blogs) demonstrating notability of the game to show up. Notability isn't inherited, so the creator of the game doesn't make the game notable. --Coredesat 06:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, per Coredesat. No evidence of notability. Stifle (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy deletion - The article itself did not reasonably assert an importance/significance, so WP:CSD#A7 speedy delete was correct. Comment I did find two brief mentions in reliable sources, so reliable source material can be added to some existing Wikipedia article. Without actually seeing a draft of the article, it is not clear that there enough information to create an article on the PMOG topic. The references listed above are not from dead trees, and need more scrutiny through their actual use in a draft article. For example, the usc.edu link (USC Interactive Media project) is not from a thesis, but a summary of a USC thesis by USC. It might have reliable source material, but the self interest in USC summarizing a USC thesis makes it difficult to know what might be usable from the source without seeing how the material is used in a draft article. Does the USC site have an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight (see What is a reliable source?) or is it essentially a blog of what USC is up to? USC's Justin Hall created Passively Multiplayer Online Game and wrote a thesis on it. Even if the USC Interactive Media project reference is a reliable source, it is not independent of the topic "Passively Multiplayer Online Game" so it does not count towards meeting WP:N. Here are the two references I found: (1) U.S. News & World Report August 14, 2006; (2) American Political Network August 30, 2007. -- Jreferee t/c 16:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• More information Sorry, I neglected to link to the location of the current version of the article in my user namespace: User:Jeffmcneill/PMOG. Thank you for the link on reliable sources. Since academic works are seen as the pinnacle of reliability, a Masters' thesis should be given some sort of weight. In any case I accept the comments on this and will continue to work on the article in user namespace. The game is being rewritten under a startup mode at this point and has gone dark in the meantime. I expect there to be much press as soon as it is re-released and at that point will be able to meet the need for more reliable/verifiable references that have been indicated here. --Jeffmcneill ^{talk contribs} 18:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Once and for all the question of what to do about reality TV winners needs to be determined. As can be seen from the deletion discussion, there is precedent that reality show winners, not just contestants, are notable enough for their own wikipages. I ask that many moderators review the relevant documentation. To start having some articles survive due to this precedent and others ignored when such precedent is presented does not leave Wikipedia in any more stable an environment. Gamer83 18:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse my deletion, precedent isn't binding (WP:OUTCOMES is neither policy nor a guideline), consensus can change, and there was consensus to delete. --Coredesat 18:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Where was consensus reached on that page? Both sides debated their points until the AFD expired. AFD isn't a vote so just because a few more "Delete per nom" statements were in the mix, doesn't mean a consensus was reached. If consensus change is your rationalle, then I say Overturn. Gamer83 00:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The word "precedent" was used a dozen times by various keep !voters in the afd, but anyone who reads afd discussions regularly will know there are no precedents regarding deletions. This isn't a court of law, just because one (or more) similar afd has resulted in "keep" doesn't mean every single similar afd must also have the same result. If that were the case, let's just close WP:AFD immediately and base all future decisions on previous results for similar articles. Crazysuit 19:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I read AFD discussions regularly and precedent is often considered and often used for keeping an article, considering that it shows a consensus about a particular subject by the larger community rather than what is taking place in that one particular AFD. I don't have much more to state on this subject than what I stated in the deletion debate about this article: "I don't see this article as being any less notable than Adrianne Curry when she won America's Next Top Model (the first winner in that show's history) and got her own article here at Wikipedia. Only difference now is that Adrianne has gotten notable work since her win. Who's to say that this woman won't do the same? Yes, Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball, but seeing as she did win this show, first winner at that, deleting her article now, when people may want to know about who this winner is and possibly not too long from now she is more notable, seems like a waste of time. And, CelticGreen, I must watch (a lot) more television than you, because I surely heard of this television show, as it was a spin-off of an even more highly popular show...Flavor of Love. Shows like this or A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila, when on VH1 or MTV, hardly ever go unnoticed by me. Perhaps you don't watch VH1 or MTV that often, because this show was all over VH1. I still stand by my decision to Keep this article, though it seems that it will be deleted. As for previous deletion debates where the argument was how the person is a winner or the first winner in the show's history, I don't have any links to provide to that, but I'm certain that you can find them on Wikipedia. In any case, just the list of articles on models from America's Next Top Model, as shown above, is hint enough at some kind of precedent concerning this matter...even with some of those models not even being as notable as this person.
• I'd like to point out that a deletion debate just closed as Keep on this same rationale of precedent, as seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashlee Holland. I don't feel that every reality show contestant who wins the show that they were on needs to have their own article on Wikipedia, but in this deletion debate about Saaphyri Windsor, given everything that I've stated above on this matter, I state again that I feel that this article should be kept.
• It is silly that one deletion debate should survive on precedent when another deletion debate of the same subject matter is deleted in the face of that precedent. To start having some articles survive due to this precedent and others ignored when such precedent is presented does not leave Wikipedia in any more stable an environment."

• All that said (again), I also see the closing administrator's point, of course, about this article, in how it isn't in too good of shape. However, I feel that it would have been best to allow this article to be fixed up than to delete it. As for sources, aside from just being on this show, she has had notable exposure by winning this show and is not only limited to her win on this show. I'm not sure whether to state to overturn this outcome or just comment, because I won't endorse the decision to have deleted this article, and it can always be re-created in better shape at a later time, as the closing administrator of this article suggested on my talk page, preferably once she has had more notable exposure/work. Flyer22 21:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn as no consensus, as there clearly was none. Pushing person notability standards isn't the role of an admin in AfD. — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn: Keep page and re-list in AfD if the problems still exist. There was clearly no consensus in that AfD. - Rjd0060 01:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn (and relist if so desired). Some of the comments here have deprecated the value of the precedent-citing keep arguments. However, remember that there are also precedents favoring deletion. If there were an AFD for a reality show loser, for example, where the keepers argued that her role on a nationally-broadcast show made her notable, and the deleters cited precedent that mere contestants are non-notable, would you scornfully declare that it should be kept, since the delete arguments relied on precedent? Precedents are not a bad thing. They reduce the arbitrariness of XFD outcomes between similar topics. Accepting precedents also allows editors to move on, rather than rehashing the same arguments over and over. I don't agree with every precedent and guideline, but I don't constantly argue my positions like Badlydrawnjeff.

However, the reason I think the result should be overturned is that I feel the debate was corrupted by the nominator's statement, which portrayed the subject as a "disqualified" reality show contestant, without noting that she was brought back for a second show that she won. If the nominator had said, "OK, she won, but we're not talking American Idol here; I don't think Flavor of Love: Charm School is important enough to keep its winners" (or "I disagree that reality show winners are notable, and I'd like to revisit that precedent"), and gotten the same result, I would accept that. But editors who relied on the nominator's statement without reading the article carefully could think she was just a losing contestant. None of the first five recommendations, all deletes, says, "she won, but delete anyway," so we can't assume they picked up on that. I believe these comments should be discounted. (One of these editors, fond of terse rationales, was commenting in nine AFDs in nine minutes.) Once it was pointed out that she actually won the second show, only two new contributors argued for deletion, one of them an account that had only been registered the day before. This suggests that fuller information had shifted the tide. --Groggy Dice T | C 03:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Since people are playing the "precedent is not an argument to keep" game, I think that we can mention that all the "deletes" were either "per nom" or simple assertions of "not notable". In fact, "she won a reality show on television" is a reasonable argument for keeping an article, since that indicates a fair amount of attention directed towards the subject. This is a no consensus case. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist and start trying for some consistency. It was actually closed as keep and redirect, and there is not presently an article on her, just a redirect--to an article which has exactly one sentence about her. I don't think of redirect as a keep, although it is technically. But it succeeds just as well as a delete in removing the article. I recognize what I think this way is not really the consensus here, but it's time it were. Time we started recognizing that a merge may or may not be a delete, depending on what is done with the article, but a redirect is almost always a delete, unless there is substantial coverage in the target article. (I really can not see the reason for bringing the DRV, because the goal of eliminating the article was achieved). And especially that it is a sign of immaturity and lack of seriousness to have a system for deciding anything which does not aim for consistent decisions, but allows and accepts incompatible decisions and sees nothing wrong with that. Time we accepted some responsibility for running a major information resource in a more reliable manner. DGG (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and close as no consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn KEEP and close, Wikipedia is a Free Encyclopedia, the few are currently trying to keep new entries out without full justification. John B Sheffield 09:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

Dammit, Janet! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD#1|AfD#2)

In discussing the AFD with the closing admin, he acknowledges that he believes the keep arguments are weak but that had he deleted it, "enough people think AFD is a vote that it would likely be sent to DRV and overturned." I don't believe this is within the discretion of the closing admin. It's not up to the admin to contemplate what would or wouldn't happen at DRV and use that as a basis for the close decision. The keep arguments, while numerically superior, were as the closing admin noted weak and those wanting the article kept failed to answer repeated challenges to the reliability of the sourcing and the faulty notion that trivial mentions of the song title meet the requirements of WP:N. Note that one keeper switched sides in the course of the debate. Otto4711 18:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the link above is to a previous AFD. The most recent AFD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dammit, Janet (Second Time)!

Note to closer - One of the editors who has opposed this article in the AfDs, DRVs, and on various talk pages has now opened up a request for comment to address issues that the AfD#2 resolved. In addition, claimed original research evaluated during AfD#2 was removed from the article and then the article was tagged as having original research. On closing this DRV, would you please comment on any existing consensus that have already addressed any of the issues raised in the a request for comment and take any appropriate action (such as by removing the Articleissues tag from this article). Apparently, a purpose of all this is to keep this matter "in the swamp" to teach me a lesson.[1] -- Jreferee t/c 14:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm just trying all avenues to get someone that understands the concept of what it takes to pass WP:N, which requires that sources have direct and detailed examination of the topic, to look at this thing. People seem to just be counting the references instead of evaluating them.Kww 14:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak overturn and delete (or possibly relist) per nom. I know my remark does not assume good faith, but I was being realistic when I did the close. Most of the references were passing mentions and don't work per WP:RS. Most of the keep arguments were very, very weak ("there's much less notable stuff on Wiki..."). However, despite AFD not being a vote, their sheer number is what made me end up closing the AFD as keep (though we'd likely still end up here, but with someone proposing the article be undeleted). The article should have been deleted by strength of argument. --Coredesat 18:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure as keep (or no consensus) and also per my reasoning in the discussion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn: One of the most mindnumbing AFD discussions I've had, with editors that refused to understand the concept of direct and detailed examination of topics. Even more frustrating is that the article uses nearly exclusively paper references to articles that obviously do not have a detailed examination of the song, possibly to allow the author to demand that I prove that articles titled The Indie 50; The essential movies and Celebrate Independence Day without leaving home don't address the song directly and in detail.Kww 19:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keep Otto4711 himself said a redirect made sense in AFD2... so why is he still trying to turn the article into a redlink? It's pretty bizarre. I think people here are too concerned with getting a deletion to "win" the debate... a redirect at the absolute least is clearly supported by policy. Otto and Kww made their argument in AFD2, the people who read it overwhelmingly disagreed, the forum shopping is getting a bit tiring. The argument doesn't even make sense any more, considering Otto's inconsistency over the redirect. Why is this DRV even necessary? --W.marsh 20:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So yeah, did you want to, oh I don't know, address the content of the DRV at all or did you just drop by to do some bashing? Otto4711 20:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Criticism isn't bashing... and everything I said was about the content of the DRVm some of it indirectly since mentioning past discussions was necessary. If you can't answer a question about why you're filing DRVs or even arguing for deletion still, you probably shouldn't be doing those things anymore.--W.marsh 20:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've answered your questions already. You may not like the answers but that's not my problem. The DRV is open because I believe the admin went outside of his discretion in closing it, a position for which the closing admin has expressed support. Otto4711 20:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see where you've countered my argument about a redirect to an article on the soundtrack. WP:MUSIC says "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article", WP:REDIRECT says a perfectly good use for a redirect is "Sub-topics or closely related topics that should be explained within the text". Common sense suggests that since we can have a WP:N-meeting article about the soundtrack and the movie, that we should redirect the songs there so people can get information when searching for or linked to those song titles. And yet you argue for deletion still. I've yet to see you counter that, and Kww even seems to agree with redirection, and only proposed deletion when his redirect was reverted. --W.marsh 20:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure as Keep per the Keep comments on the AfD, which are sufficiently reasonable (even excluding mine) that a solid majority of comments in favor of keeping must be respected. In general, where a sizable majority of independent, non-conflicted, non-SPA editors support keeping an article, requesting a DRV will rarely serve a useful purpose unless there are BLP or similar concerns. Newyorkbrad 23:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Newyorkbrad. Any action besides keeping this article would be a blatant violation of consensus. — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keep - there is a clear consensus here. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 00:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keep. Current article asserts notability for WP:MUSIC. -- Sander Säde 04:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Keep, current article is notable and should not have even been up for deletion in the first instance, all it required was cleanup. It's a little hard attempting to WP:AGF here because the reasoning of the delete votes are not in line with Wikipedia policy, and so the only other conclusion is that it must be forum shopping or a vendetta of some kind, I don't know, nor do I care. What is clear though is that consensus was reached, and the closer was spot on with their interpretation of the debate. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 06:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You did notices that he said Most of the keep arguments were very, very weak ("there's much less notable stuff on Wiki...")... The article should have been deleted by strength of argument. Or did you miss that part?Kww 11:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - The keep reasoning was clear and focused in that the article met Wikipedia article standards. The article itself provided the very evidence that supported the keep reasoning and that clearly was brought out in the discussion. The delete arguments had no basis in Wikipedia policy and guideline and failed to provide any evidence to support their conclusion. Starting off with the AfD nomination, the AfD nomination stated "non-notable" without linking to any Wikipedia policy and guideline. The only evidence the nominator provided was "the first AFD voted "delete" instead of "keep"". The nominator did not provide any reasoned arguments based in policy that would support deleting the article. As for the remaining delete arguments, they included unsupported conclusions not based Wikipedia policy and guideline and unsupported conclusory statements about the cited references. Not one of the delete reasoning even claimed to have read over the cited references much less provide any specific comments about any of the cited references in the AfD. With the keep reasoning strong and based on policy/guideline and the delete reasoning based on personal beliefs whose conclusions were left unsupported by evidenced based reasoned argument, it is clear that the closer interpreted the debate correctly. -- Jreferee t/c 14:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The close was correct, judging by the AfD. I can't judge this sort of subject myself and didn't join the debate, but i can see that the only extended argument for delete was made by one ed., who kept accusing his opponents of misquoting policy as requiring exclusive coverage for acceptable sources, and then accused the people who correctly called him on it of "bullshit" and "dishonesty," "stacking lies on top of lies on top of lies". I do not know why the closer thought that was "strength of argument". Reading the debate as even no consensus would require judging by frequency of repetition. DGG (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keep. Clear consensus. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 22:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Keep The number of current calls for deletions is going to bring the good name of Wikipedia into question. In a Democracy the Few who going around asking for deletions should not be able to control Wikipedia. The majority of users of Wikipedia each and every day would never think of getting involved in debates to delete, Unless it was Libel or Offensive, it is time that this problem is looked at seriously. John B Sheffield 09:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)JBS[reply]

Borer Data Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I have created a draft article as advised on my page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Missingspace/Borer_Data_Systems

The previous deletion review can be seen here, back in Sept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_7

Please review and advise of whether the article can be considered for an article or whether further amendments would be needed, Thanks. Missingspace 09:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't allow. The sourcing is totally inadequate, and I don't think better soucing exists. A bunch of references are listed, but the ones that I could look at aren't about Borer systems at all, rather, they are articles written for an industry publication by someone who works for Borer systems. Even if those references were really about Borer systems, they're inadequate, I would expect to see information from sources well beyond industry-related micro-interest newsletters if the company were truly notable. Mangojuice^talk 13:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion but Allow Recreation and Speedy Close because we're not being asked to review my prior deletion, we're being asked to review a rewritten article. Speedy deletion is not a bar to recreation of an article in a way that addresses the reasons for the speedy deletion. The new article is not so spammy that it couldn't be fixed. The original article was not speedied on notability grounds. I think Mangojuice's concerns are valid, but they should be taken up at AfD. Please note that I had to delete the entire history section as it was copied from this page, with a few words changed. It will have to be rewritten. Finally, I hope the author has read Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. -- But|seriously|folks  17:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, no, this is a normal type of request. The user was told to come to DRV before reposting the article, so that its appropriateness can be considered, so we should consider it here, not at AfD. Mangojuice^talk 17:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought he would be entitled to AfD on the notability issue, as it hadn't previously been addressed. But I see your point. -- But|seriously|folks  17:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The first sentence of that rewrite needs to say just what Borer is, which is not even mentioned in the rewrite. Corvus cornix 23:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness to the author, the portion I removed as a copyvio included that sort of information. Also, I don't understand what "carbon footprint" has to do with the subject. -- But|seriously|folks  02:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted. The draft article isn't even adequate to qualify as a stub, the "references" are neither references nor sources, the "carbon footprint" bit that constitutes half of the proposed article text is confusing at best and seems completely irrelevant, and the whole mess reeks of WP:COI. Heather 23:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Szantyr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

She announced she has been signed by TNA wrestling, and I created an article on my userpage that is sourced and ready. Its at User:ThisDude62/sandbox. If Austin Creed can have an article, why not her? Thanks a lot. ThisDude62 01:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC) -->[reply]

Overturn deletion Your article is great and you are right if austin creed can have an article, why can not talia? she is signed to a major wrestling promotion, and is the champion of the largest women's promotion. give her an article. ShyGuy69 01:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be at Talia Madison though. That is what she uses in wrestling and what she has as her website (http://www.taliamadisonworld.com/). So Talia Madison should be unsalted also, and have this redirect to Talia Madison. TJ Spyke 01:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, whatever, bro, its all good. I could have the article at Talia Madison and have mentions of Szantyr changed to Madison maybe? ThisDude62 01:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion/Salting, Other articles existing is not a valid argument. Moreover, all the sourcing is from Online World of Wrestling (where any wrestler can pay to have an article), her website and myspace (primary), and TNAwrestling.com (also primary). Why can't y'all just wait until she has a notable storyline or wins the TNA Women's Championship? Just signing with the company does not make her notable. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. She could be fired in a week without ever doing anything worthy of noting. Just keep the article in your sandbox, get some reliable third-party sources and all will be fine. Nikki311 02:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She was in the first match for the TNA women's title, thats some noteriety. I think that you need to provide reasons she is NOT notable. Articles on Wikipedia are not about storylines. ThisDude62 03:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof lies on the people trying to prove she's notable, not the other way around. Nikki311 03:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion and Close. I highly doubt she's become that more notable since the last DRV closed on this less than 24 hours before you posted this one. You can't keep DRVing until you get the result you want. Smashville 04:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, there has been new news since then. Nobody is going to be released from a written contract in a week. Average Wikipedia editors don't know how this stuff works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThisDude62 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta Boy Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This morning 25th October the entry/page for ATLANTA BOY BAND was deleted, this was after yesterday we stated all citation/evidence was now ready to be posted. This we did in good faith this morning, less than one hour after we posted our entry was deleted without any explanation. I can't trace the monitor who deleted now as the page is on longer active, only in archive. All evidence had been produced as requested even from HRH Prince Charles. Our entry is not for promotional purposes this has been accepted, but demonstrates the Notability achieved by Atlanta (Boy Band) - The required evidence to us comes from Most reliable sources such HRH Prince Charles private Secretary and the BBC. We have contacted parties who supplied the evidence posted and they are most disappointed at the deletion in this way. We trust it will be reviewed and restored fully. Many Thanks Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band 11:50, 25 October 2007 (Evidence posted at http://atlantaboyband.mysite.orange.co.uk/ UTC)JBS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band (talk • Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band 11:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)JBScontribs) [reply]

• Endorse deletion. The latest draft was much shorter but still entirely without sources or evidence of notability. JBS claims to have the sources now but still has not shown what they are, and in any case this unsigned band still does not seem to meet WP:MUSIC. We've been promised the sources for quite some time now, but still they have not been produced. Mangojuice^talk 13:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: thanks, DGG - I hadn't noticed the technical error in the last deleted version of the article. I can't view the links that are posted there, but I believe they must be the images the creator of this article has now posted on Myspace. Those sources are not acceptable. Only one of them is actually a publication, and they don't even say what the publication is. But even if they had, the coverage is a tiny blurb with basically no usable info. It was not necessary to post a scan of the article, a simple citation would suffice. However the other materials are not anything like secondary sources, and posting scans of them does not make them acceptable. I think enough is enough: this is a former manager/producer of the band trying to promote his former project, which is a conflict of interest, and this has used up enough community time already; Wikipedia is NOT a free webhost. Mangojuice^talk 17:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. The article offered no evidence of notability and the latest 'sources' (hosted on the bands myspace and website) still fall well short of meeting WPMUSIC. Nuttah68 14:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please ask if you are saying that the correspondence from The Private Secretary to HRH PRINCE CHARLES is not Evidence and are you still saying that HRH did not take a personal interest and they were not Young Ambassador's for The Prince's Trust?

Are you also still claiming that Atlanta did not appear with BBC Radio One the UK's Number 1 National Radio Station, when you have been shown evidence of the event poster/flyer and artist backstage pass, the same with BBC Children's TV show "THE BIG BASH" at the National Exhibition Centre in Birmingham, again photographic evidence and an artist back stage pass is not proof.

We still have much more evidence to post, what more though is still required?

Someone changed our entry/page just before deletion this morning, that is why it is shorter, we still claim the full original entry stands. The evidence has been produced and was this was stated prior to the deletion:

http://atlantaboyband.mysite.orange.co.uk/

The Prince's trust do not keep evidence such as this on their website, that is the same with BBC Radio One and BBC TV, as they have far too much archive history, that is a decision they make. The evidence does prove ATLANTA (Boy Band) did exist, the HRH Prince Charles letter from his perosnal secretary mention RCA Records who we cut the track "One More Chance" with. All that was asked for has been produced.

For an unsigned band in the UK, this is all notability and does meet the notability criteria set out.

It would be of interest where the readers who still endorse the deletion to stand are from, do they understand British heritage and our culture completely?

This matter has been put to Wikipedia to decide and it is now an important decision for them to make, what messages it sends out to the British public. We trust that WIKIPDEIA will look fairly on our appeal - thanks Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band 15:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Atlanta

• Technical comment Looking at the last deleted version, most of the article is not visible unless one looks at the edit window. (the text was erroneously inserted within the brackets of a fact tag). Is the version on the user page now the intended material in the article? DGG (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that technical information, the full original article submitted is intended. Thanks Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band 15:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Atlanta —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band (talk • contribs)

• Endorse deletion. An article consisting of statements that could reasonably be referenced with citations to the sources presented at the link given by User:Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band would, I think, still run afoul of WP:MUSIC. The sources support very little of the information contained in the article the user is seeking to restore, and the deletion of that article therefore seems the correct decision. Deor 16:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell us what is not qualified by the information that has been produced and published, we are willing to produce anything that is needed, we still feel we do meet the criteria set out, it is clearly stated you do not have to qualify with all points but some of. Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band 16:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Atlanta

Both myself and Denny Mahoney from the Group are doing everything possible to meet what information is required. All we ask is for some readers we will see our honesty and help us in any way they can with helpful advice. Many readers/contributors have been given awards on this website, I wonder how many Rightful AWARDS we will be able to give to those who in a genuine way are willing to stand up and assist us, that is all we ask - Please - John B Sheffield 16:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

In the opening paragraph alone, "toured the UK during 1993-1997," "appearing on all major Commercial Radio Stations," and "supported the likes of Boyzone, Backstreet Boys, Take That and Ant & Dec" cannot be verified from the sources you've posted. And it goes on from there similarly. Deor 18:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, and strongly encourage the creator to read the guidelines on conflict of interest. This is not the place to push your band. May need a dose of salt if it keeps getting recreated. As for advice, my advice is stop editing the article, it's not appropriate to edit or create articles on subjects one has an interest in promoting. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per Seraphimblade. The legal threats made during the afd properly demonstrate why COI articles should be viewed with special caution. These editors cannot write this article - even were the band notable - in an unbiased dispassionate NPOV way. Salt is appropriate because due to the non-notability of the band the only people likely to recreate the article are those with COI. Carlossuarez46 17:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know what self promotion of the Group or myself I am making, the group have not performed for ten years and the lead singer is in another band now. In my case I had serious surgery recently and will not currently unfortunately be able to return to work. So there is no self promoting interest I can assure you. The Group were asked to make the entry as it demonstrated the good works and achievements made by "The Prince's Trust" and the notability of Atlanta as an un-signed band also to mark ten years since there last appearance. Is it not please time that the decison was now left to the powers that be at WIKIPEDIA. Some mention is made of salt, why? - this should not be personal. Wikipdeia is a Free Encyclopedia not just for the few and not just the USA but the World John B Sheffield 17:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

The project may be finished, but your reputation and theirs still exists. The community might have a different reaction if this article was created by someone truly independent, but it wasn't. It was created, and championed, only by those intimately involved in the group. When you have a conflict of interest like that, you aren't strictly forbidden from editing, but you had better stick to Wikipedia practices thoroughly and completely, and if this band really does meet WP:MUSIC (1) you haven't shown that, and (2) even if it's borderline acceptable, better to delete the article and let someone truly independent write it if anyone has an interest. See WP:VANITY. Mangojuice^talk 17:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mangojuice, your comments are most appreciated, personally just as their ex manager today I feel really "kicked in the teeth" by a few here. Some of the UK media are taking an interest in these debates and perhaps one of those will kindly make the entry for us, but they will only have the evidence we have produced, but we are still willing to obtain anything further that is needed. Personally I may be close to the matter, but it is from 1997, I do believe stronly in principals though and some things the group have been accused of have been proved wrong. John B Sheffield 18:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

• Endorse my deletion, clear consensus to delete in spite of the group's promoter's constant hounding of those arguing to that effect. --Coredesat 18:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, the notability of this band was never asserted and/or verified. Every request to do so was met with a lot of beating about the bush, including at least one indefblockable legal threat. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. With regard to the media coverage of this band, the article creator claimed early in the AfD discussion that "Video evidence is available of all TV appearances, cuttings of all magazine appearances are also kept". Yet for the next five days, he made no attempt to cite those television or magazine appearances in the article, despite being requested to do so. This made verification of the article's claims impossible. This deletion should be without prejudice to re-creation if an independent editor with no direct association with the band wants to rewrite the article with proper sources. --Metropolitan90 05:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm at a loss why these personal attacks persist and that is how I see it. I was never the promoter of Atlanta and I have not seen members of the group for nearly ten years now, I was their Ex Manager. People state we have been beating around the bush, but we have published evidence, someone said no magazine articles have been published, again we have from MIZZ Teen Magazine, which is still published today, in the article you can read it states ATLANTA Toured with Mizz Magazine last year and will again this year, the only un-signed band. Stating truth and facts is not hounding, that is something I would never wish to do.

It was never my intention to upset anyone and the perceived threat of legal action, this was only we asked for advice, and was withdrawn with an apology. I have worked all my life in Commercial Radio in the UK and then in the later years in Artist Management, so I only will make statements what my trained background is. Through sickness I have not not worked since 2001 and recently had to have serious surgery, so it is not for any self promotion.

We are trying to get permission to put up some of the documentary from TV on "youtube" but we would do nothing without permission. We have published the Mizz Teem Magazine Article, which is clear enough to read. Also poster and artist backstage pass from BBC Radio One Tour, this is the UK's Number One Music Radio Station, and a photograph of Atlanta on stage with BBC TV at the "Big Bash" and again the artist backstage pass, also the letter from the office of HRH Prince Charles, which again is clear to read, these are all available for inspection at:

http://atlantaboyband.mysite.orange.co.uk/

These achievments are beyond doubt in the UK seen as notability for a band through circumstances that remained unigned and travelled 93,000 miles in UK Touring.

All concerned have stated we will produce anything else that is requested, some assistance/advice here at Wikipedia has been given, and that means so much to all of us. Regards John B Sheffield 06:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

• I stated in the AfD discussion, "Keep in mind that what many Wikipedia editors will be looking for is specific citations -- which would include not just the publication name, but the date of the article, the title of the article, the author's name, and the page number. This will make verification of your sources much easier." The article creator never did that despite his claim to have cuttings of all the band's magazine appearances. The band supposedly were featured in a documentary for Granada TV, yet the title and airdate of that documentary were never provided either. Note that the article creator was not asked to post those magazine clippings and videos on the Internet, just to identify them sufficiently to enable other people to look for them. The latter could have been done in a matter of minutes, but never was done. The article creator also failed to use good faith, in that he said he had no problem with withdrawing his legal threats, yet never actually did so. --Metropolitan90 06:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Metropolitan90 for your most balanced response and also the advice give. The creator did not have all the cuttings and informatio , this was sourced and then permission was requested to publish them on the internet. The programme broadcast by Granada TV was titled "NWA" which stands for North West Arts, a very modern look at art including music. The date will be sourced, Granada TV also then owned LWT London Weekend Television and we were told that the Atlanta Boy Band item was broadcast in the southern region as well.

The creator and myself have always used good faith, I can sincerely assure you and I myself and on behalf of the creator completely withdraw fully any legal threats that may have been made without reservation. The creator tried to reply but is no longer allowed to post?.

In good Faith I still feel the matter can be resolved, that is what Wikipdeia should be all about, I understand deletion quickly over anything "libel" or "lies" and the press in the UK have mentioned cases including professional footballers person lives, but with music it would have been really good to see more help, when you are new to WIKIPEDIA working around it is like a minefield and a lot of information rules to be taken in - thanks once more John B Sheffield 07:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

What you have here is evidence that they once played on Radio One, and that they had a tiny splash blurb in MIZZ Magazine once. You claim they were part of a documentary, but (1) you still haven't given that a full citation and (2) what you have described leads me to believe that their role in the documentary was tangential, not central, and probably contained very little information about the band itself. All that just doesn't add up to enough, not by a long shot. Look at Monovox for an example of the kind of secondary source coverage that would suffice. Mangojuice^talk 11:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks "Mangojuice" for your constructive comments, as always. I have looked at the entry for Monovox, I notice the first citation/reference was to their own website, which Atlanta got attacked for as not relevant.

The main difference in opinion with regards be it BBC Radio One or Mizz Magazine is the culture difference here in the UK, to achieve this ffor an unsiogned band is unknown, many bands try everything but never make this high level. The TV Documentary I stand by what Atlanta says this is the truth and it will be fully proved when we have permission to post some of the footage. It does hurt when you have had a good name and repuation all your life in Radio and Music to be doubted like this.

But we appreciate the advice and help you are giving us, we will still continue to publish on the website any further evidence required, we hope to have more to be posted early next week. We still Trust our entry will be allowed and restored, any help assistance anyone feel they can give will mean so much. John B Sheffield 12:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

This is not a cultural issue as you are trying to make it. Playing Radio 1 or BBC branded events is not special. Checking just the Radio 1 events in just this year over 40 unsigned bands have played, if you extend that to BBC the number soars past 200. The majority of bands who appear do not go on to become notable, I've played two events. The core issue is still that you need to provide reliable third party coverage of the band. The only thing you have so far supplied is a scan of a Mizz piece, but even if this were properly cited I doubt this is enough to meet WP:MUSIC requirement of 'been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works '. Nuttah68 16:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 40 unsigned bands have played on BBC Radio One and that is not significant? - I'm sorry but I can't agree, working in radio for 21 years, on a bad week we received 200 plus new release singles and up to 1,000 some weeks, out of those we had to choose 5 to be playlisted as new each week and you mention the figure of FORTY over NINE MONTHS! - if you are in that FORTY that is most significant and all those bands that did not make it will be sick. The procedure you have to go through on BBC Radio One to be accepted can take 6 weeks and you go through the eye of a needly to prove you are worthy.

Again you say the only item we have produced other than the BBC Radio 1 material and BBC TV material is MIZZ Magazine, what about the letter from Kensington Palace from HRH? which made reference to going to see ATLANTA in concert for "The Prince's Trust" and reporting back to HRH? - agai not every band/group gets to appear in events they organzie in the UK, a cts are chosen, you do not request to appear.

I know many colleagues friends who are Artist Managers here in the UK and they would give anything to achieve what ATLANTA did and many of their acts were signed. I do not see the work published so far as trivial and the TV Documentary was not.

In the past twenty years I have seen Three programmes on UK TV about Boy Bands, one of those as "Take That" - once we are given permission, it will be posted on "YouTube"

I have today checked many music group/band websites here on WIKIPEDIA many of them in the USA and so many only cite their own websites for information.

I keep repeating we will produce anything asked for. John B Sheffield 17:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

No, 40 unsigned bands have played at Radio 1 events. On average Radio 1 play 50-60 tracks by unsigned bands each week: roughly 3000pa. I say the ONLY source you have come near to producing is the Mizz piece, if properly cited. You may want to read WP:RS again. A flyer and a couple of back stage passes come nowhere close to be substantial coverage.

As for the leter from Prince Charles secretary, no that is not an indication of notability. It is not reliable coverage by an independent third party and hundreds, if not thousands, of Trust volunteers recieve those every year. Posting footage on YouTube will not help your case either. What has been explained a number of times now is that you must provide citations of the media coverage stating the source, author/producer, publication/broadcast date. Ideally these need to be interviews with the band or extensive coverage of them.

Finally, as has been pointed out, the poor state of other articles is no reason for this article to remain. You can always nominate articles you feel short of the Wikipedia notability requirements if you want. Nuttah68 17:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry but thousands of supporters of "The Prince's Trust" Do Not receive letters each week like that with the content the letter included, and to state it is not "Reliable" coverage by an independent party, for me just "beggars belief". We were asked to produce the video of the documentary DVD, again "YouTube" is the best souce, but that is not good enough. The list of citations you list it is clear 95% of Group/Artists WIKIPEDIA do not meet that. Then lastly the "poor state" of articles, your personal opinion! - I'n not clear what would ever be good enough. Thanks John B Sheffield 19:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

The Atlanta article is truth, proves notability and is accurate, meeting clearly without doubt many of the "criteria" needed, it is stated all criteria do not have to be met, we are just going around in circles on these points. We stress will produce any further proof needed if people will ask for some particular form of evidence.

Yes I could nominate articles that fall short, but I admit I don't know sufficient about the music industry in the USA and how it works, what is seen as notability in the States or Canada, to do tha in this case would be wrong, but I do feel I know about Great Britain, that is said in a most sincere way. John B Sheffield 17:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

No one so far on this deletion review agrees with your assessment of the notability criteria are met. Without that you are fighting a losing battle. As for further proof, you have been asked and told many times what is required, we need dates, publications, authors of articles/shows that have featured the band. Nuttah68 17:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated we will produce further proof early next week, cuttings etc have been sent to the creator today and on receipt will be scanned and posted. Authors of articles in press and magazines are not always credited, that is format in the UK, but dates should be no problem.

"No one so far on this deletion review agrees with your assessment of the notability criteria are met" - if every piece of information needed or required is published, will or would it be still sufficient? - I do hope so.

• It is so difficult for me to understand why the information produced so far, including the letter, which is significant, is totally still ignored. I'm at a complete loss and are many here in the UK who are monitoring this debate - thanks for you imput John B Sheffield 17:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

For the last time. Scans of cuttings are no use. You must provide the correct citation. And please, give up with the 'we in the UK' bs. You're not the only Brit on Wikipedia and the 'sad' stories of how the UK is so different don't wash. As stated earlier, I've played a number of Radio 1 events and had a few tracks played on Peel, Kershaw, Da Bank etc. Nuttah68 17:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not see them as "sad" stories it is stateing fact, which you have the right to disagree with. I feel stronly the UK music indusry and life is diferent to the USA and I am allowed my opinion. One person says scans of cuttings are no use, when others say publish and let us see magazine cuttings etc, this seems to be a very mixed message. You do not give your name or the group name as an artist, so I can't make any professional judgement, but I do know shows like the great John Peel and Andy Kershaw where only specialist music evening programming (mostly late night).John B Sheffield 06:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

Direct answer: Will it be sufficient? No. There's a disconnect going on here, I think: you think when we say "publish" we mean that you should make your clippings and whatever available: we don't care about that. What we care about is how much reliable, independent information about the group has already been published, such as magazine articles, newspaper reviews, books, academic papers, TV or radio broadcasts, et cetera. What you have described is not sufficient, so don't bother showing them to us, it won't help. We get dozens of articles about unsuccessful, non-noteworthy bands all the time and delete them routinely. Normally bands like this that never even have record contracts or put out any albums don't make the cut, even if they exist, even if they had some concerts, even if they've been on the radio a few times, even if they have fans. It would be very rare for such a group to be legitimately noteworthy but not impossible. This group is, apparently, not an exception, so there's really not much you can do. Mangojuice^talk 19:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mangojuice, we will continue to source more of what is required, I think it would be most wrong of Wikipedia to say "never" to any entry, otherwise it will never develop fully and be "The Free Encyclopeda" it claims to be. John B Sheffield 06:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Clear consensus. No proper citations (reputable independent website article URL, newspaper name/issue/page, magazine name/issue/page, etc.) have been posted to provide reason to reconsider. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 23:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We will provide the further detailed informed you advise, this has been passed to the creator by email this morning, thanks John B Sheffield 06:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

I'm sure you've heard the phrase "Show me the money". Well, show us the sources. List them right here. No more promises, no more delays, just do it now. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 10:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion; strongly suggest salt. It's a damn MySpace band without a single full-length album to their name. That fails WP:MUSIC by a longshot. The Prince of Wales' secretary likes them? Do we then begin authoring articles on William S. Burroughs' favourite bar bands and so forth? Notability is not contagious. The SPA requesting review has repeatedly ignored our policy on legal threats as well as the clear consensus arrived at in the AfD discussion, and the allegations of systemic bias against the UK are absurd--if anything, there exists a systemic bias in favour of our island. Heather 17:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's disappointing the "tone" including language and insults you have to use in your comments, it does no good for the name and reputagtion of WIKIPEDIA. Atlanta Do meet most of the "criteria" of "notability" - it states so clearly that All Points do not have to be achieved. It was made totaly clear that legal threats was not and ne ver was our intetion in any form or way, we just took advice on what we were being accused of at the first calls for deletion. "Any perceived Legeal Threats Where Withdraw Withpout Reservation" for this to be be comtinously raised shows some "systemic problem" with those who post these allegations. The majority of my Friends are American, but I do not understand all of your culture and ways, and I have made over 20 visits to the USA, to claim that talkling about differences in our way of life and culture is "bias" is well absurd I'm sorry to say. The letter you make reference to from "Kensington Palace" states in clear English that HRH Prince Charles "has asked" to compare this to favourite bar bands is an insult. The creator of the Atlanta entry and myself have been polite at all times to everyone, even if we may not agree, posts like this do nothing for the good name of Wikipedia and the comments should be withdrawn. Thanks John B Sheffield 19:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]
• Endorse deletion, the consensus at the deletion discussion was to delete due to lack of WP:RS and ultimately violation of WP:V, and nothing indicating that such reliable sources exist has been provided. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note with regards your "allegation" of a "Violation" of WP:V

Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves Policy shortcut: WP:SELFPUB Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as: it is relevant to their notability; it is not contentious;

• Once more we have met the "criteria" as clearly set out John B Sheffield 18:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]
  • ... but these self-published sources can't be the only sources on which an article is based. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion per near-unanimous consensus at AfD. -- But|seriously|folks  03:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• We can only say we have met nearly all the points to meet the criteria of notability we have and are producing information a requested, this not seem grounds to "delete" even with the endoresements so far. I wonder how many who read our entry agreeds and had no problem with everhything truthful we stated, looking through any deletion/appeal thread names appear over and over again wanting deletions, but they are the few. John B Sheffield 06:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

• I still call for the "full withdrawal" of the comments made against the good office of "HRH Prince Charles" in this Country "The Royal Family" are held in high esteem still by the majority, even if you may not agree, you can show some "respect" at the very least, it was uncalled for. John B Sheffield 06:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

Comment Deletion - Question: Can someone please advise me if anyone has the right to delete a comment that I have made, if so should it be stated that is the case, would this show in a log or archive. A commment made last night seems to be no longer on the thread? Thanks John B Sheffield 08:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

There are certain circumstances when other editors' comments can be deleted, but I checked the page history for the past two days and nothing of yours was removed by anybody else. -- But|seriously|folks  08:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your quick response and help John B Sheffield 09:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

• Mizz Magazine - We can confirm the article on ATLANTA in Mizz Magaizine was from the issue dated MAY 1996, the writer of the article was the Mizz Features Editor, Marie Claire-Giddings. Mizz Magazine was then published by IPC Magazines one of the UK's then major magazine producers.

BBC TV - CBBC(Children's BBC)"BIG BASH" - The "Big Bash" took place at the NEC(National Exhibition Centre) from the 28th November - 2nd December 1996 - ATLANTA were part of the event appearing and performing each day, links and live interviews live on TV took place every day(see picture of Atlanta being interviewed live on TV stage)

We have also added 2 more ATLANTA tracks recorded to master standard to the player on the Atlanta site. "Let's Go Round Again" which was writteb by Alan Gorrie of "Average White Band", Alan also came into the studio and did a mix with his voclas on as well. Also "One More Chance" the version we orginally recorded and took to Simon Cowell RCA Records, RCA still hold the master of the version they recorded with Atlanta. John B Sheffield 08:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]