Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icarus Project


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-25 06:07Z 

Icarus Project

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The Wikipedia article for the Icarus Project appears to be little more than an advertisement for this group's website. Nearly all the edits have been done by one user, and nearly all the references point back to the group's website. NeantHumain 03:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Article is only referenced by the subject website. Fails WP:V and WP:N. janejellyroll 05:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Changing to Keep due to the new sources added to the article.  Subject site meets WP:N.  My personal feeling is that the article as it stands is POV, with too much of the article being made up of direct quotes from the website, but those problems can be corrected. janejellyroll 06:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added some third-party references, including a newspaper article from the East Bay Express and a Columbia News Service article. --Eastmain 05:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. 1ne 08:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per new source. Also, if you think it is POV, the correct remedy is to fix it, not to delete it. If it's almost entirely written by one person, clearly no one tried to fix it yet. - Mgm|(talk) 13:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. (solution to POV is first trying to fix it, not deletion) Mathmo Talk 13:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is an WP:ADVERT, it kept it would need major cleanup. Telly   addict Editor review! 13:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. As Mathmo and Mgm explained, WP:ADVERT does not require deletion of an NPOV article. When an article on an otherwise encyclopedic topic has the tone of an advertisement, the article should be rewritten in a neutral point of view, not deleted.  I have tagged the article to be rewritten. -Fagles 23:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Interesting. - Kittybrewster 09:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.