Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 14

< February 13	Deletion review archives: 2007 February	February 15 >

Review Requested & Fair use complience sugestions requested Fenixasin

Overturn and Merger. This article was written over the span on eight days, in those eight days, it was flagged for noumerous items, most of which were addressed. In the end this article was deleted because of "Fair use material" I am requesting that this be reviewed, and what should be changed to have it comply with fair use, if it is the images, why was taking the images off not suggested to comply with fair use. If there are other things, what are they?. I wish to know what information fron the page can be merged to the Phineas waldorf steel page and still comply with our standards, and to have the doctor steel page redirect to the as said page.Fenixasin 05:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion: The article showed no difference from the material at Phineas Waldolf Steel and was more of a fansite than an encyclopedia article. Most of the contributors to that AFD were single purpose accounts that had no other edits other than to the AFD. As such, they were WP:ILIKEIT votes and had no use in determining consensus. Although I initiated the AFD, I still feel that the article at the end of the AFD period was still not encyclopedic, and this article had been speedy deleted five times before hand. This article would have been WP:SALTed a while ago, and I only recently put it at WP:PTL for that reason.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me Ryulong, but how may the article be salvaged, Merger was proposed by the 3 non SPA's, the keeps were by SPA's I'll give you that, but I have to ask... where is your input on how to fix it... I don't care about the images, but the discography is what I wanted to salvage, I just want information available to those who might want it, that's why I love wikipedia, it has information on everything, not just a few things, and it's free to everyone in the world... maybe it's the socialist in me, but information should be free and available to everyone. Fenixasin 04:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you Ryulong for the discography, I appreciate you spending the time to locate it for me.Fenixasin 05:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Seven deletions at Doctor Steel, four at Dr. Steel, two at Phineas Waldolf Steel, numerous different admins involved, plus an AfD closed yesterday (what has changed since then?). Constant re-creation by brand new users without ever actually fixing the problem, plus this comment in the last deleted version of Dr. Steel: OPERATION WIKIPEDIA IS SUCCESSFUL Type "Doctor Steel" into search box. I don't think we need to be part of this viral marketing campaign. I don't know what User:Fenixasin's brief is here, but I note that their contributions to Wikipedia appear to consist mainly of adding this individual, images of this individual, and adding links to the articles to others such as Jay Leno and The Tonight Show. Guy (Help!) 10:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsider Deletion Can someone please honestly tell me why they will just up and delete this article?I mean many people tried so hard to put this up.I really would hate to form such a bad opinion of many of you admins.I would just appreciate one straight answer.Or one of you could just delete and protect this section of the discussion,which was done several times before. Tyr 07:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. Puff

My apologies for bringing this back to DRV, but I was bothered by it's second close. This AfD was first closed by a non-admin as a "speedy keep", which was reversed since it there were valid objections. The second closing, by admin Wizardman (talk · contribs), was a keep. My problem is that the keep argument was extremely weak; all the keep supporter were claims "She's a major character!", without showing any reliable sources that prove these claims or show any other notability of the character. The delete/merge arguments were grounded in policy (namely WP:RS, WP:V and WP:FICT), and the keep voters did not address any of these problems. Considering the strength of the arguments, I argue that the AfD result should be overturned and the article deleted. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my dispute. Based on what WP:FICT says, I'd put Mrs. Puff as realtviely borderline between major and minor, leaning towards major. Having watched Spongebob regularly, she appears rather frequently and would be worthy of an article under WP:FICT. WP:RS really needs to be taken with a grain of salt, as it is far more difficult to find them with fictional characters. WP:V is a difficult issue with fictional characters, as the only way to verify mot information is to watch the actual episode. that being said, the article does have some sources in it now, and I would keep the article again given the chance. endorse keep --Wizardman 22:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relist, since there was an assertion that she has real-world significance, and that claim deserves a chance to be substantiated. I'm not sure that I'd feel comfortable overturning such an overwhelming keep count of established editors, either. -Amarkov moo! 05:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep, there were a lot of voters on it. Only one made a plain delete vote, and even that one in the comment afterwards suggested alternatively merging it. There is not one person on that AfD who was strongly for deleting. I think the consensus was very clear to the admin when the decided to keep it. Mathmo ^Talk 08:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the WP:RS concern I cannot see any real concerns which would make me call the article unverifiable. The Spongebob Squarepants series itself is a valid primary source reference of the existence and events concerning the character, and the entry on Nickelodeon's site is not independent but does qualify as reliable enough. Self published sources in articles about themselves is valid. The issue of the notability of fictional characters is decided on a case-by-case basis and the inherent subjectivity involved in making such determinations means that notability is not as hard a rule as WP:V or WP:NOR in the terms of overriding community consensus. On this AFD there was a clear consensus to keep this article and WP:FICT guidelines are relevant so arguments relating to the character's importance are perfectly valid. Wizardman's close was the only correct call. Endorse closure. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, I am curious about something. 'Keep' voters on fictional character/elements, claim the character is "major" as if there is some kind of inherent subjectivity involved, as you say above. However, WP:FICT states that all characters should be kept within the main article on that work of fiction, regardless if it is a major or minor character. And that a major character can have its own article if it has "encyclopedic treatment" (ie. Out-of-universe perspective) and the main article is already too long. I take that to mean that a character would need to have (at the very least) one secondary source that describes it outside of the in-universe context. Am I missing something? Also, WP:RS concern is not about unverifiable info, it is about finding a reliable source (ie. non-promotional) saying she is a major character, or notable enough to mention (certainly SpongeBob is written about in academics and the press, but Mrs. Puff?). --maclean 01:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure, since I don't see anything wrong with the process here. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golden-Road.net

Page about a site that was deleted due to being hightly biased and written poorly. I would like this reviewed. Jeff Defender 21:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and keep current version. Jeff Defender 21:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion - The reasons given for this review as stated by Jeff Defender are fabricated and distorted. If one examines the previous AfD, it is obvious that article was deleted simply due to Notability requirements not being met. This is why the article was initially nominated for a speedy deletion today, until someone pointed out that it had already been deleted a little over two weeks ago due to an obvious consensus in an AfD. Also, the User:Jeff Defender account appears to be a sockpuppet created only to resurrect the Golden-Road.net article. This user has demonstrated a great deal of understanding of Wikipedia policy that a new user would not possess in such a short amount of time. Jeff Defender would seem to have little NPOV in regards to this article. Hatch68 21:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion - I seriously doubt our site is notable enough outside the Price fan community to warrant a Wikipedia entry, and even if it were, the article as it existed two weeks ago was a badly written piece of junk that was probably beyond the point of salvaging without a complete rewrite. I know of at least four other site staffers besides me who feel the same way about this, so...yeah. -TPIRFanSteve 22:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and rewrite. The owner must of felt that the site was not getting the respect it deserved in the first time around. --KP —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Karim Prince1 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Overturn and rewrite. The fact that the site takes viewers behind the scenes plus the fact that it gets tons of hits each day is more then enough to make it notable. Most game show buffs would agree. As for Hatch68's claim against Jeff, it's possible the user might have read policy a long time and then created the new name. Notibility is a difficult factor to be neutral about. In any case, his reposting was not malicious. NoInsurance (chat?) 14:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion - The page has been restored (yet again) since its speedy deletion yesterday, despite a specific request to the contrary from the Webmaster of golden-road.net. He recognizes that his site is not wiki-notable; that should end the discussion. If the poster immediately above me plans to fill the new article with phrases like "tons of hits" and "most game show buffs," I doubt he'll be able to improve on the old one. I'm an active participant on g-r.net, but this page (in any form) is simply fancruft. JTRH 14:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no, I don't. I plan to state that the site provides extensive information, is visited by many former contestants. The point it that the page was originally deleted because it was highly biased. NoInsurance (chat?) 14:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is another false statement that is not based on the original AfD dialogue. It was deleted because it did not meet the notability requirements, plain and simple. No where in the AfD discussion is "bias" mentioned. Hatch68 15:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, valid closure. If you want to create a better version in userspace (with sources and assertions of notability), then review that one here, go wild. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm the admin who recently speedied it as a recreation of an AfD'd article. I've just done so again and protected it against recreation. If/when Deletion Review decides that it can get a rewrite, an admin will need to unprotect the article. A note should also then go on the talk page informing any future potentially "deletion happy" admins that it's been resurrected via DR. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I hoped for a better outcome, I posted altered {{deletedpage}} on a couple of variations. The first one was not edited, so full protecting isn't nessecary. I'd semiprotect, though since all recreations were done by new users. NoInsurance (chat?) 11:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and redirect. The owner doesn't mind whether or not his site is listed on WP, so a good compromise is to redirect it to The Price is Right where is it referenced. 148.4.32.14 21:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, i checked the site today and marc, who launched the site stated he's not interested as to whether this is listed on wikipedia. I'm sorry if i mislead anyone, but as of now i will have nothing further to do with this. Jeff Defender 23:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marc did NOT say "he's not interested," he specifically asked that people NOT keep trying to revive the page.JTRH 00:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bwebliesl.JPG

Image Copyrighted:FreeUse Captain Barrett 20:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin is removing picture of Bio subject(CopyrightedFreeUse) without stating reason, during ongoing AfD discussion, then protects page, thus stopping addition of picture.Captain Barrett 20:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image is here. It's called CSD I3. Endorse deletion as a blatant speedy candidate. Daniel.Bryant 21:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Daniel.Bryant is not the Admin who removed the picture without explanation.Captain Barrett 04:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Which portion of CSD 13 does this fall into, please? Captain Barrett 21:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep-I just uploaded the image to the creative commons with the proper copyright attributes. I should have done this before, but I'm still learning. :) Captain Barrett 21:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This one, and this one. Daniel.Bryant 21:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Daniel.Bryant is not the Admin who removed the picture without explanation.Captain Barrett 04:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThanks :) If I did say it was only for wikipedia use initially, i was incorrect. I have now asserted a Fair Use claim, based on standard wikipedia procedure. Thanks again for your attention to this matter.Captain Barrett 21:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, of course. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Strong

A relatively new admin closed this discussion as a clear delete, even though there was very limited participation. Based on my read, it seems to be either a no consensus, or something that should have been left open for more comments. --El on ka 09:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion — the argument was split down the middle by the few who participated, which means there was no consensus to keep or delete. Therefore, the article is kept by default. Moreover, the article is/was in the process of being expanded and sourced, although there are already a few fairly reliable sources. For these reasons, I feel the article should be returned. — Deckill er 09:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, there is a conflict of interest situation here – [1]. The article tried to assert notability, but fails to fulfill WP:BIO by providing multiple reliable sources. The Washington Post link does not work, the other two make transitory mentions of the subject. Keep deleted. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The link works fine for me: [2]. — Deckill er 11:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Plausible close per WP:BIO, limited participation is not a good reason for overturning since AFD debates don't have a quorum. >Radiant< 11:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — WP:BIO states that a person is notable if it has been the subject of multiple (more than one) reliable secondary sources (explained on WP:BIO) that are independent of the person, with non-trivial coverage). I see multiple newspaper sources (Contra Costa Times, Jewish Weekly, and Washington Post), and in all three, this person is either the subject or one of the primary subjects. Moreover, there are two other sources; one a website, another with similar significant coverage. Also, the person has performed in TV shows which, obviously, have significant coverage and viewing (loosely based on the final optional criteria). I feel that it passes, albeit somewhat weak. — Deckill er 11:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I usually hold the mere existence of an article in the Post as a good argument for keeping, but in this case, it's not so much an article as a short, local, "What's On Guide" (the dates and prices give it away, IMHO). The Jewish Guide wasn't really an article about him, just a brief mention in a similar guide/ranking thingy. yandman 11:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm surprised by is that this person performed on some extremely notable shows, yet he did not receive at least partial attention from a single article about him. That Post miniarticle is somewhat thin, but I still feel that there is just enough to cross the threshold and keep the article (especially if one adds google hits). On the other hand, this man has only recently become popular, so it might take some time before he catches more notice of the scholars and the reporters. Also, it might be possible to dig up other sources; we'll have to wait and see for the duration of this review (the page has been userfied). I'm not too concerned either way, although I'm glad to see additional discussion taking place now. Too bad it did not occur during the AfD. — Deckill er 12:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. Seems to be a proper reading of consensus. 3 deletes (including nom); 2 keeps, but 1 keep is an acknowledged friend of the subject who presents no argument based on policy and the other keep is a weak keep based on borderline notability so "the article can grow". I don't think the keeps established their position relative to the deletes, so the consensus was fairly judged. —Doug Bell ^talk 12:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I hate to appear like a comment troller, but I feel that Elonka established her keep well in comparison to W.marsh, who did not reply to her final reply. The second keep vote concerns me as well, but s/he was working with Elonka on the article and is a relatively new editor, which alone has numerous pros and cons. — Deckill er 12:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure after other editors have agreed and the closing admin has made clarifications. Clearly, there is no need to be stubborn here. The article has been userfied for future potential. — Deckill er 12:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll try to be more verbose in my closing comments in future. Apologies. yandman 12:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find that helps whenever the consensus is not obvious from the sheer numbers. —Doug Bell ^talk 12:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GameTZ.com

GameTZ has been covered twice in GamePro and been the subject of a syndicated TV spot discussing online trading and bartering (the whole "multiple, reliable, unrelated sources" thing). It was the first game trading site (begun in 1996), spawning the creation of such well-known failures as Switchhouse. I do not see how that doesn't meet the notability requirements. On top of that, there was no consensus at all on what should have been done, so it should have been closed as "no consensus." ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from closing admin: Just a reminder, this is not a rehashing of the arguments on the AfD. In my closing note I stated that the case for notability made by the keep arguments were not convincing. The decision in this review needs to be based on whether my reasoning in determining consensus was correct. Other than this statement, I abstain from comment. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm saying that you were incorrect as the items I mentioned clearly make the case. A TV spot and coverage twice in a major gaming magazine definitely qualify as multiple, reliable, and unrelated sources, and therefore I believe your reasoning was incorrect. I also stated that there was no consensus either way on the discussion as the arguments for deletion focused on the USA Today article, which was incidental to the main articles/TV spots used to establish notability. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, valid close and good judgment. Fails criterion #1 along with #2 and #3 of WP:WEB – The content itself has been the subject of multiple and non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself – Only a trivial mention on the USA today link. The other references are not independent, linked to GameTZ's own site. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if this comes off as sounding rude, but are you even paying attention to anything I write? The USA Today article is NOT being used to establish notability. You are acting as if the two mentions in GamePro and the TV spot aren't even there. They are (or were, anyway) clearly referenced in the article, and the USA Today mention is merely incidental to these others. I agree that the USA Today article does very little to indicate notability. I have never claimed that it did. In fact, I've stated several times (here and in the original AfD) that it's not being used to establish notability. I don't know how I can state this more clearly: the USA Today article is NOT being used to establish notability, and in fact is not even necessary in the article as the WP:WEB notability requirements are very clearly met by the GamePro articles and the TV Spot. Again, I apologize if this comes off as rude as that is not my intent. It's just very frustrating to have people completely ignore these points and use other completely irrelevant points to "back up" their claims. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should also point out that GamePro is completely independent of GameTZ. They have no connection at all other than people who play games use both. The same goes for the TV spot. It was produced independently of GameTZ, and GameTZ had absolutely no influence on the content of the spot (other than having a member of the site be interviewed in the spot). How these can be construed as being linked to GameTZ is beyond me. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are not being rude and I appreciate that you cared to comment. The GamePro magazine you cite as source does not even look notable to be included, considering the state of the article. Moreover, there is a complete lack of multiple independent sources. Perhaps we interpret guidelines differently, I see this as a valid closure. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't (and shouldn't) judge one article based on how good another article is. Just because the GamePro article is not quite up to snuff doesn't mean the magazine isn't a notable magazine, and therefore good for use as a reference. There are plenty of notable topics which either have very short articles here or no article at all. And I still don't understand how GamePro and the TV spot don't count as "multiple independent sources." There are two of them, which make them "multiple," and they are both independent of GameTZ. Exactly how does that not qualify? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we don't judge one article based on how good another article is. The problem is GamePro itself is not a source that is covered by WP:V and WP:RS. Moreover, you are unable to provide us online links for an online portal like GameTZ.com to justify its inclusion. Should we take your word for it that it was published in some other non-notable magazine? And given a coverage that was more than trivial? Even if all zis was true, the article is still has trivial which do not justify its inclusion in anyway. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion, per points made by 日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe}. The closing admin should have taken these points into account, they clearly mean it is notable. It seems maybe too much weight was given to considering other sources that are not the primary reasons for why it should be kept. Mathmo ^Talk 08:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gomagicgo

Go Magic Go is notable because it was started on Thursday, July 28, 2005, as the first podcast for magicians by magicians. One needs only to search "podcast" here and find dozens of informational entries for podcasts of note, some of which are as short as one or two sentences. Adam Curry has a page for every one of his podcasts in Wikipedia, not just the one that he supposedly birthed podcasting with.

In addition to GMG's notoriety as the first magician's podcast, they have been recognized by the magic community as such. They have hosted such great magicians and mentalists as Kenton Knepper, Banachek, Scott Wells, Kevin Spencer and more. The hosts themselves have been interviewed by Scott Wells on his live show at the IBM Convention, where they also served as judges for up-and-coming magic acts.

If you don't know who Kenton Knepper, Banachek, Scott Wells, Kevin Spencer, et. al, are... then that shows that you don't understand the notoriety of this podcast, its hosts and its impact on the close-knit and growing community of magicians.

The GMG entry should remain since the administrator trying do delete doesn't understand it. Just because Alphachimp is simply not aware of the significance this podcast has in the magic community, or the fact that it is growing every week.

--Indyhouse, magician and GMG listener

As a fan of Go Magic Go, I really was dissapointed with Alpha chimps decision. Go Magic Go is the first and one of the leading podcast concerning magic. We have been an increasingly popular podcast. I meet magicians who know me by the shirt I won from this podcast! My magic instructor found out about this podcast about the same time I did. Go Magic Go is an important resources for performing artists. Wikipedia is a great place where the users can add and collect data and history about this podcast as it continues to grow. I would like to see the correct title[s] unblocked also, it was an extreme disrespect to have to move to an improper title. Please reconsider GoMagicGo and Go Magic Go. Go Magic Go is the official title, however the YouTube account and myspace page is under GoMagicGo. Thanks! NordicSkier 04:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping that the revival of this page could happen. Alphachimp deleted our page calling it unremarkable. Go Magic Go is the first magician's podcast, and has over 5,000 listeners. Magic is becoming very popular from magicians, such as Criss Angel and David Blaine, the number of magicians in the world are growing. This podcast serves to link the magic community together.

All of the Go Magic Go listeners are hoping you will change your mind about your decision, -The kid houdini —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The kid houdini (talk • contribs) 03:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Endorse deletion and salting, if not speedily. Various deletions were valid A7 or G11, and all appear to be valid. Various incarnations of the page violated various parts of WP:NOT, such as WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOT#MYSPACE, and WP:NOT#FORUM, and the various recreations were copypastes, making them subject to the very same criterion under which they were previously deleted. None of the versions assert notability per WP:WEB, and on the internet, 5,000 listeners isn't a remarkable number. Also, the fact that other magicians are notable doesn't make a podcast about them notable. --Core desat 04:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, keep salted The fact that your podcast has a forum community willing to recreate your article over and over and over again does not mean that you are notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Quite simply put, none of your revisions actually attempted to assert notability. I'd encourage admins to check out the deleted revisions. alphachimp 04:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, valid A7. Serial and obsessive re-creation by editor with no other contributions invites scepticism. Guy (Help!) 08:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, keep salted Unless some new sources can be found that are non-trivial, reliable sources then it should stay deleted. --sunstar net^talk 11:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to clarify that the podcast is not about these magicians, they listen and endorse it. The forum community is trying to recreate the page because we did not know of this deletion review. I think I found it. We accidenlty made another one when a listener tried to make a new page, but made it under the wrong name. how would we prove it is non-trivial? New sources? Reviews of the podcast, We just never linked you to them, I don't remember the sites, but I will ask around in the forums, If thats what you need. Have any of you seen mindfreak, a good number of the magicians who work with Criss, are supporters of our show including, Banachek, the man who fooled the scientists. We were in a german magazine. Here are some links. http://www.gomagicgo.com/images/GMG_Magie01.jpg http://www.gomagicgo.com/images/GMG_Magie02.jpg

We all still hope you will change your mind,

-The kid houdini

http://www.magician.org/webcam.html -- specifically: http://www.magician.org/videos2006/Scott_wells-sat/video1.rm -- approx. 33 minutes into the program taped live at IBM (International Brotherhood of Magicians), Andrew and Keith are interviewed by Scott Wells and recognized for their contribution to the magic community. Indyhouse 17:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be mentioned that the article was deleted before any outside sources could be added. Indyhouse 17:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are other references to GoMagicGo from other, "non-trivial" sources, they were never compiled into one place before, which is why I think the Wikipedia entry was started. Indyhouse 17:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious if adding the standard "internet-publish-stub" would help the entry? It should have been added to begin with. Like this entry, which as far as I can tell is less-cited than GMG: Polyamory_Weekly Indyhouse 17:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-UKGareth aka Garethwitty : Well I am very shocked at this deletion, what happened to Wikipedias goal of collecting as much information as possible about things like this? How can other magicans find GoMagicGo if its deleted! I ask that GoMagicGo be put back to its place so other users can and ad make the page MORE relevent. Well I wont be using Wikipedia again! I hate sites that go against freedom of speech! Now I am all for protecting agains vandalism of artcles, thats fine, but this, this is a joke! but I am not laughing. I am quite happy for my account to be closed if the mods here dont like what I have to say.

I saw that one of the podcasts I linked to as an example got deleted, so how about this one: Daily_Source_Code Indyhouse 21:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]