Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UW Phases


 * 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   delete. clear consensus among non SPA's - even with them there is consensus for deletion JForget  00:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

UW Phases

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not notable, appears to be promotion of film project. Jminthorne (talk) 06:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Update: A lot of the arguments have centered around the fact that people were not happy with opinions, speculation or other ambiguity that existed in the article. However, I have just went through the article and narrowed it down to the facts.  The article is now much more credible.  As such, I will delete my "delete" note from the bottom of this space.  I also did a great deal of research on the Gifford family, and found that Jessica Gifford does in fact live in Las Vegas, and a blog mentioned that she traveled to Laramie wyoming twice in one month (apparently to see a boyfriend?).  I also found that Frank Gifford had his grandaughter Christiana Gifford on Family Feud along with Kathie and Frank's son Cody.  I also found that Cody is dating a "Claire Schreiner"   click that link to go to that.  So here's what I have to say: Matthew Schreiner is listed in the article as one of the founders of the phases, and it is clear that he has verifiable immediate connections to the Gifford family.  I don't think it is much worth disputing this any further.  Last, I would like to say that after I cleaned up that junk that was on this article, I think that was is left is pretty presentable.  FINALLY, I called the number listed, and it was answered by a "Trevor Wrage." He wasn't a business type, but seemed like this was his personal phone. However, I did not mention this article, and merely stated that I was interested in getting a copy of the journal, as well as a video of one of the lectures.  He said he wasn't sure if there were videos of the lectures or merely audio, but that I could get whatever volume of the journal, just to email him.  The email he gave me was to info@uwlawteam.com.129.72.188.191 (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Further Update!: I have also found an article specifically listing Matt Schreiner as Claire Schreiner's brother. []  This is further proof that Matt Schreiner of the Phases has connections with the Gifford Family.  i don't think it's too far off to believe that he is dating Jessica Gifford.129.72.188.191 (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Many of the recommendations in this discussion have come from IP addresses, and it's not always certain whether different edits from the same IP address come from the same person. However, I would note that User:129.72.188.191's offer to remove their "delete" note implies that they previously recommended "delete". However, this edit to this AfD was User:129.72.188.191's first Wikipedia edit, and that edit included the statement, "To that note, if this article matches the standard already used on existing, ACCEPTABLE wikipedia entries, then we should be able to keep this entry." I have not found a prior "delete" recommendation from this IP address. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Compare: Notability of a single film requires little to no substantiation. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Independent_(2007_film).  However, this article discusses two volumes of films produced by the group.  To delete would be to require differenting and unequal standards for notability.


 * This is not a promotion. This group does community service projects year round.  Moreover, the page merely has a short blurb about the current projects.  Even more convincing, is the fact that 90% of the article refers to past projects and the group's history.  Therefore, this defeats the proposition that this is a promotion. AustinBrister (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Next, this is a notable article. If you look at the discussion page of the article, it clearly supports that it meets the low standard of proof required to be "notable."  This group has been influential, has made several contributions per semester to the community and to the realm of art.  If you look, there are several articles on persons, that merely hold a position in a company, with the dominant portion of their articles talking about their family members and friends.  To the contrary, this article speaks of this group's prominence both at their University, and to other universities.  Additionally, the article speaks of the quantity of projects the group has made to both the genre of film, as well as to specific University film festivals, including "Law Ball 2009 and 2010."  AustinBrister (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Now I don't mean to say that the article doesn't need cleaned up. However, it surely is notable and is absolutely not promotional by any means. AustinBrister (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To say that this entry is not notable is to place your own normative value judgment of notability on an entry that is of interest (and is therefore notable) to a wide variety of users. The applicable definition of "notable" states:

Presumed notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Simply because there isn't a plethora of readily available web links does not in any way indicate that the contents of the article are not notable. Reliable secondary sources surely include print media, i.e. sources external to the Internet. The independent sources covering the subject-matter of this article include local newspapers, American Bar Association approved club newsletters, online blogs, advertisement materials for a local film festival, and a host of other sources. It seems that allowing a reasonable period of time for which such materials may be presented would preclude the deletion, speedy or otherwise, of this entry. 129.72.188.220 (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Jminthorne, you appear to have a problem with this content. However, this seems to undoubtedly pass my "straight face test" for notability that I usually adhere to.  I would consider this article to be within the 30th percentile of notable articles on wikipedia today.  Jminthorne, I am removing this prod tag immediately.  If you continue to "heckle" this article, you will be considered in abuse of wikipedia.  Notability is not a preference, opinion or entertainable standard.  Nor does the topic need to seem important to you.  I would encourage you to review both of the following articles.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Alternatives_to_deletion, as well as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion.  You considered no alternatives, and did not, as far as I'm concerned, follow the correct procedures.


 * Delete, notability not established. Hairhorn (talk)
 * Delete, not notable, despite the multitude of references that either do not mention the group or that are not reliable sources like the video/youtube type links or blogs. (GregJackP (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC))


 * Requesting Thorough Arguments, The few users fervently requesting that this article be deleted have not made an argument as to why it is not notable. Its writers have, therefore, not been given an appropriate opportunity to correct the article. If you look at the discussion on the page itself, you will see about 5 other claims to KEEP the article as well.  Furthermore, the arguments that exist both here and on the article claim that various print sources back up the claim to notability.  A deletion here, is inappropriate.  I would propose to remind users that notability does not refer to an article's perceived importance.129.72.189.89 (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This article appears to be legitimate, and claims to have reliable print sources. While I would agree that a few of the cites do not appear to be worthwhile, this problem is best resolved through fixing the article, and placing the appropriate tags on the article for cleaning it up, rather than simply deleting it. (98.127.82.129 talk) (Signature added by (GregJackP (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC))) — 98.127.82.129 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. Most of the "sources" used as "references" in this article do not even mention this group or their videos, thus making them completely useless for citation purposes. As an example, the article claims that Kathie Lee Gifford's granddaughter Jessica Gifford appears in one of the group's videos, and cites this to Jessica Gifford's web site. The problem is that (a) Jessica Gifford's web site doesn't mention her being in any of these videos, (b) Jessica Gifford's web site doesn't mention her being related to Kathie Lee Gifford at all, and (c) Kathie Lee Gifford has no grandchildren; in fact, Jessica would be older than either of Kathie Lee's children. (If they meant that Jessica is Frank Gifford's granddaughter, well, the source still doesn't say that either, nor that Jessica was in the video in the first place.) Of the sources that do mention this group or its videos, none are reliable independent sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Let me say first that I admire your fervor in defending this article, but what works as a 2L or 3L will not work here, nor is it relevant or material to this process. In Wikipedia, notability is a standard that is very simple to follow and it can be found at WP:NOTABILITY.  Notability is shown through verifiable, reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.  Of the 12 references listed, only 1 of them mentions the group, and it is a blog.  Blogs are not normally reliable sources for Wikipedia.  Sources do not have to be web sources, but they must be able to be verified.  Print media is a reliable source, although student newspapers are not normally included in that category.


 * It should also be noted that there are three roads to deletion, and contrary to the assertion made on the talk page, a deletion does not need to be uncontroversial. The first method is speedy deletion (which does have to be uncontroversial) based on an article meeting a criteria for speedy deletion.  That did not occur in this case.  The second way is by a proposal for deletion (or PROD), which may be contested by anyone, and was not attempted here.  The final way is by an Article for Deletion discussion, which is why we are here.


 * Note that in an AfD discussion, the reviewing Admin will only be guided by the reasons given by the participants (i.e., editors) that meet Wikipedia standards. This is not a !vote - single purpose accounts and IP !votes may be and usually are discounted.  Please review the applicable Wiki standards and frame your argument accordingly, but do so civilly and recognize that a good number of the editors involved have a better knowledge of the issues (or the law for that matter) involved than you may be giving them credit for.  Stay on point, and do not drift off into meaningless dicta and you will make a better argument.  Good luck. (GregJackP (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC))  P.S. - remember to sign your posts and/or pleadings with ~


 * Response: Yes. Technically she is frank's grandaughter, and as they are married, she is therefore Kathie's granddaughter.129.72.189.89 (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)  Additionally, what LAW is involved in editing and creating wikipedia entries?  Are you personally an authority on this issue?  Could you point me to relevant primary or secondary sources of law as to the subject?  This is ridiculous and has gotten out of hand.  If this article gets deleted, I suggest that the current articles on wikipedia be placed under the same high level of scrutiny. 129.72.189.89 (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing "technical" about it; see Stepfamily if the concept is unclear to you. Also, the sourcing in this article is, to put it politely, suboptimal. In order to prove that the Jessica Gifford in one of this group's films is Frank Gifford's granddaughter, somebody posts a link to a picture of the Gifford family on Celebrity Family Feud -- Frank, Kathie Lee, their children Cody and Cassidy, and Frank's granddaughter Christina. No mention of Jessica, yet somehow this is supposed to have some relevance to the mention of Jessica Gifford. The article also cites as a reference the "Sports and Entertainment Law of Wyoming Journal", a publication whose title garners no Google hits other than this very Wikipedia article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Response to the Pointed Personal Comments towards law students: You state that what is relevant as a 2l or 3l is not relevant here.  i would like to know your logic.  Logical reasoning is always the best method for coming to conclusions.  Here, the defenders have taken your rules, that you too have cited, and have applied them to these particular circumstances.  This seems to be perfect for the situation at hand, and seems to be the most preferable way for people to have a discussion.  This will lead to the best outcome!  Additionally, by what standard does a newspaper meet your criteria for reliability?   Surely such journalism is more reliable than the predominant portion of wikipedia.org


 * Comment - Please accept my apology, my reference to what works as a 2L or 3L was not meant to be insulting, I would have said the same thing to a baby lawyer (or an old fat balding lawyer for that matter). This is not a legal proceeding and what is effective in those venues doesn't work here. A legalistic approach is discouraged, and we are dealing with a multitude of backgrounds. True, some are legal professionals, but there are many more laymen.  As to the student newspaper issue, it is covered at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_58 - they are generally not considered to be reliable sources.  (GregJackP (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Comment - Please acccept my appologies, but to state that using rational argumentative style is discouraged here is insulting to Wikipedia.org. On the other hand, which informal method would you rather me use?  To state it bluntly, Tell me what I can offer so that this article can remain.  dont' just say "not notable."  That gives me no help.  All I can do is look at what you define as notable and say that I disagree, that it IS notable.  What can we do!? There are about 8 people who have contributed to this article so far, and about 15 who have directly commented to me about it, asking me why it is to be deleted.  In short:  please help me, not just delete my article.  I am trying to HELP wikipedia, make it a better place!


 * Response to requested argument style In the above, you said "Please review the applicable Wiki standards and frame your argument accordingly." Additionally, you seemed offended by my offering of the rules before applying them in the current case.  however, this is using standard and traditional logical argumentative style, and not meant to be an insult.  That being said, I really wish people in this discussion would do the same, so that the arguments being given(apparently by people with more knowledge than me) could be rebutted.  if you give an argument that doesnt' give a rationale or cite the rule, it can't be argued by people that aren't professional wikipedia enthusiasts.  Thank you for your time.


 * Comment - no, I wasn't offended, but some of the standards that were offered were not on point for the argument at hand. For example, one of the arguments talked about a PROD, which was not used in this case.  As noted above, many here are laymen, and will not cite the rule that they are using in a manner that is convenient - I try to wikilink to the standards, but don't go into a great deal of detail.  GregJackP (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think he is getting at the fact that he doesn't know why people are saying delete, not that they didnt' offer proper citation. If he doesn't know the reasoning, or rule, then none of us can even rebut the argument to get anywhere.  In other words, it just beceomes a bunch of children running around pointing fingers.  you MUST put a reasoning, otherwise the creators and editors can't even make the article meet your personal standards.  Note:  I left wikipedia for over a year for the reason that deletion happy people are making this a terrible place.  It is far easier to delete a good article than to create a terrible article that will meet the sometimes irrelevant requirements of wikipedia's notability.  Also note that many essays have covered the problem of notabilty: it more often comes down to a person's subjective belief of the importance of an article rather than actual notability (reliability of sources). AustinBrister (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Print Sources - You state that print sources must be verifiable. What standard are you going to hold these editors to for this article?  Surely you wouldn't go as far as requiring them to be mailed to you?  That being said, they stated that some ABA approved club journals and newsletters are teh sources from which much of the material has been taken from.  Now, they have not yet cited these sources, but that is irrelevant to the issue of this paragraph.  If you are not an attorney, you may not have immediate and free access to such material.  How will you verify it? 129.72.189.89 (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - if it is printed somewhere, then someone can get access to it. For example, I often use LEXIS, JSTOR, and other research methods to find references to print material that is not generally available on the net.  It doesn't have to be sent to other editors, just available somewhere, so it can be verified if needed.  GregJackP (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC).  Thanks for signing your posts with four tildes ~.
 * Delete - Not notable. Major contributor appears to be heavily involved and invested in subject project.  Only references are self-published or nonexistent/not verifiable. Minor4th (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Unsubstantiated Claim: please see the discussion section of the page itself. Not a single source listed is self-published by any member of the Phases Group.  Please contact the UW Sports and Entertainment Law Club at (970)381-1449 to obtain verification and/or copies of the material.
 * Comment - Austin, please be careful on what you are posting as references. First, self-published references are worthless, i.e., the DVD of the film - it is published by the group, listing you as the director, i.e., self-published.  Second, please do not use references that are non-existent or non-notable, for example the "Sports and Entertainment Law of Wyoming Journal" is not shown in Lexis, WestLaw, JSTOR, EBSCOHost, etc, nor is it listed at the University of Wyoming website.  It would be relatively easy to e-mail any of the law professors at UW to verify if a) the journal exists, and b) that it had such an article(s).  Calling a cell phone originally from Colorado is pointless.  Third, lectures are not reliable nor verifiable sources.  Fourth, as an identified member of the group, you have a conflict of interest in editing the article. GregJackP (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Response - now GregJackP, your getting desperate. Surely you don't mean to assert that in the cell phone age, that a phone number to a contact must re-register their phone with a local number, do you?  Of course not.  Second, of course a local Law Club is not goign to be on West Law or Lexis.  That really goes to show your lack of credibility on those sources.  They provide primary and secondary law, along with treatises.  This is not one of those.  Additionally, to purport that every source needs to have their contents on EBSCOHost is an absurdity.  However, I would encourage you to email one of the professors, however, it will most likely be a waste of time considering that the legal staff is not the sponsor of a SPORTS and ENTERTAINMENT law club.  Here, the focus is on sports and entertainment.  The correlating club which would have predominance in the LAW school would be the Intellectual Property Club.
 * I would note that the "Sports and Entertainment Law Club" is not listed among the recognized student organizations on the web sites either of the University of Wyoming in general or of the University of Wyoming Law School. I am not saying that it doesn't exist, but it seems to be keeping a low profile at best. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Thank you for your response. Where does one usually look for the casting of a movie?  Do you really propose that I go throughout all of wikipedia and raise issues with every single movie that doesn't sight an independent secondary source for the casting information?  That is absurd.  Furthermore, in order to be notable, an article doesn't need to have very single reference establish notability in and of itself, rather they are each a chain in the conclusion.  That being said, I propose that we look at the whole picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.72.188.191 (talk • contribs)
 * Strong Keep - The article has many sources from an ABA recognized organization, that appears to be unafiliated with the group. The fact that others in here can't go to a website to quickly and mindlessly determine notability is no reason to find that the article is not notable. I called the number listed above, and was able to discuss publications, and request PDFs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.175.97.47 (talk • contribs) — 72.175.97.47 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: those of you who like "playing lawyer" might want to read the relevant policies first. For example, notability has to be established by third party sources, there is no presumption of notability (quite the opposite in practice). Further, entries are judged on their own merits, not in comparison to existing entries. WP:V is pretty important too, as is WP:RS. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hairhorn, thank you for your response. I don't think any of these posts intend to establish notability by comparison.  However, they do tend to establish how high the bar is to be considered notable; and I don't think this is debatable to any reasonable degree.  To that note, if this article matches the standard already used on existing, ACCEPTABLE wikipedia entries, then we should be able to keep this entry.  Second, I highly take offense to your "play lawyer" joke.  We are here creating articles, expressing views, rationally debating, and you are here attempting to dominating and assert some apparent authority, ostensibly using these rules.  So of course we are going to apply the rules to this article! Furthermore, what part of this is even law, or comparable to any legal matter?129.72.188.191 (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Additionally, Hairhorn, people have added plenty of third party sources - UW Sports and Entertainment Law Journal, which is entirely separate from any other UW clubs, organizations, film festivals or persons, including the UW Phases. Furthermore, I think that amongst the 32 citations currently existing in the document, at least 20 of them would overcome this "presumption" that you seem to think that proponents of this article believe exists.  In other words... no one has said there is a presumption, which is why there has been added 32 citations.  Your point is moot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.72.188.191 (talk • contribs)
 * You keep referring to a source that is not reliable, if indeed it exists at all. Talk about moot. Hairhorn (talk) 08:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * IP 76.25.35.15 added an AFD comment on the article page itself. Normally I would simply repaste it here, but as it's a not particularly helpful comment, anyone interested can read it themselves from the edit history. Hairhorn (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's go ahead and paste it here and be fair. *strongly keepThis is exactly why there has been a decline in participation on Wikipedia. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. People put up good articles and then if every single source dosent check out you delete it. Quit asserting your authority and lets just work together to improve articles rather then delete articles.76.25.35.15 (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC) — 76.25.35.15 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Posted out of equity and fairness by 129.72.188.191 (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Despite all the outlandish wiki-lawyering (Shakespeare was right) and SPA claims, there are no independent WP:RS indicating real world notability. Even their photo's a joke. begone, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that I have used the "ref name" function to reduce the number of footnotes used in this article. I didn't remove any footnotes, just arranged it so that the same source used multiple times would always have the same call number. (See WP:REFNAME.) This is a common practice in Wikipedia and is helpful in enabling readers to review the sources used. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Metropolitan90, your help assisting the creators and editors of this article is appreciated, and what seems to be an unfamiliar occasion in wiki-land. 129.72.188.191 (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. No direct coverage whatsoever. — Rankiri (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete no coverage in RS --Sodabottle (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete With respects to the discussion up above, and while myself quite willing to congratulate and admire the entrepreneurship of the "select few law students from the class of 2011 at the University of Wyoming School of Law" who have created an "entertainment group" and its set of "edutainment videos", the inclusion criteria at WP:N, WP:CORP, and WP:GNG have not yet been met.  Sorry guys.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The only people saying Keep, are three people that have no other edits besides that. Probably connected to the article content, and possibly even the same guy.  Anyway, having some law students run around video taping things, and saying hey, we got a family member of someone famous so pay attention to us, does not make something notable.   D r e a m Focus  14:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Side Note: Deletionists are not, by any standard, whether wikipedia or in real life, notable under any person's view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.72.189.121 (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)  — 129.72.189.121 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I almost never say delete to anything, having said Keep in vast numbers of these things in the past. So I'm certainly not a deletionist.   D r e a m Focus  15:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: All anyone in here has argued against are the small facts, or interesting details of this group. Every single thing doesn't have to be notable!  ON THE OTHER HAND The mere fact that they have published 2 full length movies, and 3 sets of educational videos on entertainment and entertainment law, seems to me, entirely sufficient to make them notable even if you don't believe their sources.  Which brings me to my next point.  Has anyone actually made a good faith effort to verify whether these sources may actually exist? 129.72.188.226 (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC) — 129.72.188.226 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * At the top of the AFD there are links to Google search engine, Google news search, and Google book search. UW Phases gets zero results from any of them.  Why is it even the general Google search can't find anything about them?   D r e a m Focus  15:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that not even their films get a single Google hit other than the college site itself, and the Wikipedia article about them.   D r e a m Focus  16:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - You said "Every single thing doesn't have to be notable." I disagree. Every policy concerned with notability does the same. This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. -- Pump me  up  14:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. i was able to find links to their movies.  Here is one.  http://vimeo.com/10991609  It looks like some fan loaded the videos.  Also, there is this: http://vimeo.com/7220579 129.72.188.187 (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - having a video on youtube or vimeo does not show notability. The films have no reliable sources in GHits. GregJackP (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, look here, I found the page for the law ball film festival. http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/law/showevent.asp?eventid=26757 129.72.188.187 (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That page mentions the Law Ball, but it doesn't say anything about a film festival or UW Phases. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article is well referenced, but there is no assertion or evidence of notability relating to any of the criteria at WP:ORG. A Google search for their name (quoted so as to only include results with both words side by side) reveals 4 pages of results, none of which (other than this page and the actual article) are related to the subject. One would think that any "entertainment" group in the 21st century would have at least one instance of reliable, non-trivial third party media coverage to establish notability (again see WP:ORG). -- Pump  me  up  14:42, 7 May 2010 (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.