,

Welcome!

Hello, Erechtheus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! ForestH2 00:57, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait more than a minute before requesting speedy deletion of an article. If you had looked into the article, you would have seen the content was hidden due to a faulty ref code. Rotovia (talk) 03:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Del is an appropriate option, however, it can only work if users are prepared to use it responsibly. Nominating an article for deletion without even looking into it is not responsible practice. Article management, over article culling needs to be the focus of Wiki-editors, and when it is necessary to trim excess articles, it should be done in a responsible manner. Rotovia (talk) 03:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you speedy delete the article Aberdeen F.C. achievements, because, although I created the page, I have since discovered that the exact same information is contained in a section of the History of Aberdeen F.C. page. Please could you respond to my userpage, thanks, Dreamweaverjack (talk) 04:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you try to make speedy deletion of the page U.Z.Z. I am its creator. And I want to know why.

-This part is made invalid do to the apology sent by me- U.Z.Z. creator.

Sorry, I'm new. Do you want me to put in stats? Like, I'm not sure the exact number of people killed or anything. I'm not really sure what you'd like. What would you include?Template:Unsigned:Effervescence92

Hi Erechtheus - No problem at all with deleting my article - it didn't meet the encyclopedia criteria! And now that I know about the criteria, I agree with it. Thanks for the note on my user page.

For me, the issues with using wikipedia are that I am so, so busy, and the few times I have time to write I don't also have time to wander through all of wikipedia's rules. For me, the time choice is one or the other - contribute, or learn the rules, which can mean hours and hours of wading through policies which may or may not be relevant. At which point I lose the train of thought about what I wanted to contribute in the first place. Sometimes it's easier to contribute and then let someone who actually knows the current policies (and where to find them) edit.

...and BTW, I have a question - all of the users I've met so far are men? Nice men, but is that just an odd coincidence or are there more men using wikipedia than women?

Pls respond on my user page, as the chance that I'll make it back here is slim.:) - Aunt Amanda

I saw that you claimed that I was adding nonesence to the article. I don't exactly understand what you are referring to. I added valid sources that legitimize the claims that the story has spread. I certainly don't think this constitutes vandalism. [tarzanman21]

Thanks for your message. _________________________________________________________ Yours truly, Ume$h Ghosh Blog http://umesh4ever.blogspot.com Orkut http://www.orkut.com/Profile.aspx?uid=3632382679451682289 Yahoo Messenger (redacted by Erechtheus) MySpace www.myspace.com/umesh1985 Esnips(Free ebooks and my songs) www.esnips.com/UserProfileAction.ns?id=c7449333-3ba6-40fc-8199-207120342dee _________________________________________________________

Erechtheus... Thank you very much for your support in my request for adminship. Ultimately, no consensus was reached, and I failed to be promoted, but I am very grateful for your support. Erechtheus, thank you for your supporting opinions. Your trust in me to use the tools means a lot, and I hope that I can live up to your standards at some point in the future. Yours, Thε Halo Θ

so yeah....ok if it bothers you that much, then by all means tag it with an unsourced tag....Abstrakt

Please note that Alana Grace's songs on MySpace have been played over 400,000 times. Many people are interested in her music.

With this in mind, I would be grateful if you would remove the notability flag on the Alana Grace article.

Thanks,

User:JD_Fan

Given that more music is being marketed and sold on-line, I would argue that plays on MySpace should be one criterion among several for notability. Perhaps that policy needs updating, especially since artists will soon be selling music directly to the public by way of MySpace. Please see the article on this in the Washington Post. [1]

Please note that Alana Grace has a song on the soundtrack CD for the movie "Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants" (a movie that grossed $40 M). I would argue that being included on the same CD as established artists such as Chantal Kreviazuk and Natasha Bedingfield is itself a mark of notability - especially when a number of the reviews (e.g., on Amazon) said that the song by Alana Grace was one of the strongest tracks on the CD. Some even said that the CD was worth buying for that track alone. In fact, her song on that soundtrack/CD attracted so much attention that she was invited to sing it live on national television (on the Today show on NBC). That CD has been out for about 18 months and is currently ranked about 7,000 on Amazon - not bad for a CD that has been out that long. The Amazon reviews are at: [2]

As for tours, Alana Grace toured California last summer as the opening act for Ashlee Simpson, which gave her some visibility in that market. However, I wouldn't say that she sounds anything like Ashlee Simpson (much better, much stronger, in my opinion). Listen to her songs on MySpace, and see what you think.

On a point of more general policy, I would argue that the Wikipedia is particularly useful for finding out about new and emerging artists, and it would be good to have some flexibility in evolving, adapting, and applying the criteria of notability. For my part, I am always looking for new music by new artists (e.g., by following the "Listeners Also Bought" leads from one singer to another) - and whenever I do find a new artist, I always start with the Wikipedia article (if it exists) on that singer.

User:JD_Fan

Thanks for making me aware of the notability criteria. I have added my own set of comments to the talk page for these criteria, on "Niche Markets + New and Emerging Artists". Please see: [3]

PS: The comments on that talk page mostly refer to artists outside the USA. Generally, I write about Canadian musicians - but I believe in recognizing quality wherever it is found, which is why I wrote about Alana Grace, an American musician (whom I think will do very well here once her CD comes out in early 2007).

User:JD_Fan

HI I'm just letting you know that I'm acting on behalf of the 5000 Role Models of Excellence Project in creating their page for the encyclopedia. The content is copyright to the non-profit organization therefore with prior permission I was able to go ahead and "create" the page as for the image I do not know how to remove/ re-upload it

So what sources are necessary for an album which is a stub. I can't think what information on there could possibly require verification. As you stated, I've searched and found many albums, some with actual information besides a track listing, which don't have references.

Quoting WP:V: "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article"

I don't understand how a track listing of an album is likely to be challenged. Are you challenging the validity of this? If not, then WP:V says it doesn't require a source, to my reading.

Can you give another look to that page? I added some references.

Meh i'm less than fussed about how you view me, with a negative shadow or not. But hey, I'm glad that you managed to understand what i wrote, and well done on your efforts to help Wikipedia, I'm sure proud of you.

The "one of theleading women in science" phrase has been removed, though it is a fact. Please remove the notability flag Marcela Carena, or specify what it is aimed at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pertin (talk • contribs) 22:36, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Postal Orders of Alderney, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Postal Orders of Alderney. Spinningspark (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources have already been attached to the article on Route 59 (Metra) that you tagged immediatley after I created it. Can I remove the tag now? ----DanTD (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Beach drifter (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, I shouldn't have tagged it as an attack page, my fault. I changed it to db-bio because I don't believe that being a former college player and brother of a pro player asserts significance. Beach drifter (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what the article says, it's a real radio show, not a podcast (the article says that "The show is also available from the website as a podcast" (emphasis mine)). Also, please understand that when I say that there was an assertion of importance, I don't mean it should stay; I just mean that it falls short of the standard required for an A7 deletion. It's quite possible that this thing would fail at AFD, and I wouldn't object if it did; it's just that there's enough there to at least warrant discussion. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article makes some claims of notability. Give this one a little time before tagging it for deletion. Cheers! Mww113 (talk) (Report a mistake!) 00:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding, some might speedily delete it but the author requested some time and it made some claims of notiblity, if it is not changed then I might request it's deletion per Wp:AFD Cheers! Mww113 (talk) (Report a mistake!) 00:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete my site? It is a factual contribution. Other recruitment agencies such as Adecco have a page so why cant we. We are one of the fastest growing recruitment agencies in the UK. Please let me know. Kind Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolvespremier (talk • contribs) 00:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you on about? Are you being serious? Eric Charnov is one of the most important theoretical ecologists, ever!

Please stop adding unnecessary tags. Please explain why he is not notable.

If you give me a chance. I'm doing that.

Why can't I use his own CV as a source? Is he seriously going to lie on his own CV?

No. Please don't be so silly. There is nothing defamatory there. Indeed, he is not going to make defamatory statements about himself is he?

How am I supposed to know there are 20 million members? There is one reference that establishes that there were once 200 or so members. Big deal. I belong to larger professional societies that have no business with an article. If they do indeed have 20 million members, that sounds like a notable organization. It's not manipulating anyone to point out that this project has standards, the article in question is not up to those standards, and somebody may eventually decide deletion is best if nobody wants to write anything more about the society. Erechtheus (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The society doesn't have 20 million members - New York State has twenty million people in it and this is the society for pathologists serving that entire population. As if there even needs to be any justification beyond the fact that it's a two hundred year old institution. Seriously, come on. This isn't an article about a high school glee club or something. Give me a break about the standards schpiel already, either you are trying to pull the I-want-to-see-more-content game or you didn't think this through at all. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 18:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A professional society's status as your favorite or the subject of your attention or whatever does not excuse it from Wikipedia's standards. Read WP:Notability. It applies generally. I'll also note that at the time of the application of the template, the article said nothing about the society being a going concern for 200 years. It said that at a certain time (which was long ago), the society had 200-something members. Erechtheus (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article's "status as my favorite"? By making assertions about some un-evidenced favoritism on my part you're simply demonstrating that you are trying to manipulate me here. If you don't like short stubs you're perfectly welcome to expand the article. If you want to perpetuate this act that you're some sort of champion of standards, cut the song and dance and nominate the article for deletion on the basis of non-notability. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 18:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I plead in the alternative for a reason. I don't know what motivated you to not only create the article, but have such trouble with the application of objective standards to the article. You may want to review WP:OWN. You won't bait me into nominating for deletion or doing anything I don't want to do. Noting that the text of an article, as it stands, does not clearly indicate why the subject is appropriate for inclusion is not tantamount to requesting deletion. If I wanted to expand the article, I'd do so. I don't, and I don't have to justify that to you or anyone else. We have the notability template for a reason, and it was completely proper for it to be applied in this case. I'm not demanding you start a RfC on me if you think otherwise, but know that it's an option you are welcome to. Erechtheus (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need to review WP:OWN, huh? After I just suggested that you edit the article? You're saying that there's some issue of possessiveness over articles going on, because I've demonstrated that you place deletability notices on articles under false pretenses? Gee, you wouldn't be one of those guys who throws up whatever policy links he can grab hold of to screen his own misbehavior, would you? The best reasoning you've come up with is "your citation only demonstrates that this state professional medical organization was a going concern for one century, not two." You are attempting to utilize Wikipedia policies to promote your own personal tastes, enough said. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 19:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review my edit history, sir. Your allegations are really quite false, unless you're speaking for my taste for articles to be policy and guideline compliant. An article about an organization needs to say more than it's old and that it once had a couple hundred members. That goes for the guys who get together at the corner pub for a beer every Tuesday, a professional organization, or a wrestling society. Common sense says that this organization is probably notable, but it hasn't been demonstrated. Pretend that the Wikipedia user is from Missouri and show them why it's important. Erechtheus (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing your edit history is going to somehow demonstrate that you didn't just try to send me off on a different wild goose chase poring through WP:OWN? Or it'll somehow prove that this isn't a matter of your taste in stubs, or that you don't push other editors around at your whims? You're compounding a red herring with another red herring. And "Pretend that the Wikipedia user is from Missouri and show them why it's important." Could you be any more patronizing? I understand how to write Wikipedia articles just fine - both full articles and stubs, your understanding of the distinction seems to be quite lacking and you seem to think it's your job to manipulate people into adding content to stubs - and even if I needed to be taught about it you clearly do not have the integrity or the impartiality to teach anyone about it. I did take a look at a few articles you created and it's pretty laughable considering the pose you're striking; if you do actually believe you're exhorting some sort of intelligible standard here you're applying considerably lower standards of notability to things you write yourself. A two hundred year old pathology organization that had 215 members in 1908, which would be a large percentage if not a majority of all the pathologists in the entire state - or any state - in 1908, and which was founded in 1844, which despite your claims to the contrary it said from the beginning, is just a little bit more notable than Bart Thomas. I am not a pathologist or a medical professional of any sort, by the way - you don't need to be to know that the information I put in that article demonstrates notability. (Not that establishing notability has anywhere near as much to do with the content of the article as you seem to think, if you were to actually read the policies you keep telling me to read.) Nor does demonstrating notability have anything to do with what kind of audience a stub or article is written towards. Again, if you think a one-sentence stub would be better if it was written towards a Missouri audience, feel free to expand the article that way - don't toss around notability templates and tell the author to go off and read policies and read your edit history to try to persuade him to do it for you. Next time you have an aesthetic opinion to voice do it on the talk page, or make the changes you want, don't hide your personal preferences behind policy templates and allusions and a patronizing I'm-gonna-drop-some-knowledge-on-ya-'cause-I'm-an-administrator attitude. Wikipedia is a bit heavy on people like that. And if you completely blunderingly misquote a policy in the future it would look a lot less sleazy to actually admit you've done so rather than try to distract attention from it. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 21:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply] And to make the obligatory disclaimer, that "I am not a dog" user who I see went into the article earlier and deleted the notability tag is not me. I wouldn't be coming here to write all of this stuff if I was just going to try to get rid of the tag via an edit war. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 21:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I find truly amazing is that if you actually poured the efforts into writing the article that you pour into your tirades on my user talk page, you'd have easily established the notability you are bending over backwards not to establish in the article. Note that I'm not telling you that you HAVE to expand the article. I'm pointing out that it seems belittling my contribution to the project is what motivates you far more than your own contribution does based on my measure of what you have actually written on my user talk page versus the article about which you are so fired up. For example, it is on my user talk page that a user might find out that the NYPS is the organization of choice, not in the article itself. It's on my user talk page that a user might find out that the membership of the organization comprises most of if not all the pathologists in the state. Now, shall we talk about assuming good faith (which you didn't do when you assumed I'd accuse you of utilizing a second alias to remove a template)? Shall we talk about not making personal attacks (which you did when you accused me of manipulating you and of lacking integrity)? As to WP:OWN, I'm referring to your possessive attitude over the article. That does not have to mean that you refuse to let others edit it. It can also mean you behave in the manner you're behaving when somebody suggests that there is an issue with an article. That's what I see when I see the words, "one of those games people play to try to manipulate stub authors," and, "don't splatter the article itself with messages spuriously threatening deletion," in your first message to me about the article. Now, we really have two options here. If you'd like to constructively discuss this article or anything else, I welcome it. If you don't, I wash my hands of these conversations. Your choice. Erechtheus (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Complaints about me "belittling your contributions to the project", eh? This makes me laugh as well because to read all of the comments on your talk page and to look through your edit history, your contributions to the project consist almost entirely of "belittling" the contributions of others here! You're getting a little of your own medicine - an editor keeping an eye on the actions of an admin, instead of the other way around for once - and it's evidently too much for you to take! All the objectivity and supposedly impartial evaluation get thrown right out the window in the face of your own behavior. Don't try to claim that I have done anything other than repeat exactly the original contents of that article here, which you took it upon yourself to belittle. There's nothing more to be found here than in the article, that assertion is more chaff from you. You either intentionally or in gross error tried to label that article as inadequate and policy-violating and now you're trying to excuse yourself. You're even trying to act as if administrative behavior isn't a permissible topic for discussion or something, calling my documentation of it "amazing" as if spending effort curtailing inappropriate behavior like this is irrational or ignoble next to your own incessant haranguing of editors. This isn't about the article - I know nothing at all about the NYPS and care nothing about the article, they're a footnote in another article I'm writing - this is about you and your behavior. I think perhaps you mistook me for a casual editor because I had written a one-sentence stub and you decided I'd be good fodder for your machinations. Wikipedia has more than its share of people who come here to push editors around and get their rocks off on feeling authoritative and making trouble for editors. You're a member of that group as this incident and your record shows. From your aghast, evasive, and clumsily policy-flailing reaction to what I've pointed out here I must infer that no one has seriously taken you to task over to this behavior before. I gave you the opportunity to admit you'd either misread the article and its citations or simply made an error in judgment and you vigorously thrust those options away, so my speculations about your motivations on this are no more bad faith than any of the various "belittling" of other's work that you do. At this point I feel that an acceptable paper trail has been established and I hope that other people whose work you have "belittled" come across the evidence of how you react to the same sort of treatment. For continuity I have cross-copied the entire conversation to both talk pages, please feel free to revert that change to your talk page of course if you find it objectionable. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 01:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you do realize that you spend quite alot of time telling other editors what policies they should read and how they should write (and not always with the correct rationale or interprestation, it seems.) But I apologize for incorrectly inferring that this meant you are acting with administrative authority. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 02:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well for one, Something 4 The Weekend has already been released and it deserves its own article just like other songs have their own article after being released (e.g. Touch My Body, No Air and Can't Speak French). As for Got Your Number, singles that are to be released soon also deserve their own article (e.g. In The Pictures, Sneakernight and One Step At A Time. Surfer-boy94 (talk) 04:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but this IS ridiculous, all of Kylie Minogue's singles have their own articles, as well as Britney Spears, also Madonna and the list goes on...... Surfer-boy94 (talk) 04:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see you try to redirect an article such as Bye Bye (Mariah Carey song) to its album article, ALL singles have their own articles. Surfer-boy94 (talk) 04:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot believe that you have redirected Sneakernight and In The Pictures, if you wanted I could give you a list of how many articles there are like that. This is wrong what you're doing, I dare you to bring those songs to AFD, because they WILL end up being kept. Surfer-boy94 (talk) 04:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have actually thought over what you said and you are actually right, these singles haven't charted in any way and do not need their own article as of yet. Sorry for the Inconvenience. By the way could you please review the AFD's that I have set up: Angel (Natasha Bedingfield song) and N.B./Pocketful of Sunshine (Deluxe Edition). Thanks Surfer-boy94 (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see I hadn't actually declined it- I came onto it from CAT:CSD, then proceeded to clean up the article, but I see it was actually the author who removed the tag. Still, no harm done; article could still use some cleanup and sourcs, but the subject does appear to be notable. J Milburn (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - can you please explain the notability issue you've raised? The sources I've added so far are BBC News and FOX news. Vishnava (talk) 00:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work to address your point. Vishnava (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Johnbod for his opinion. I've used the BBC, FOX and Gulf News sources, but I don't think I can make the call myself. Vishnava (talk) 00:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}}

Please take a look at the RfC I just created. Did I put it in the wrong place? I must admit this is my first RfC. Erechtheus (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks fine to me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave it as it stands, unless you want to do the same redirect to EVERY ONE of the presidential inaugural addresses. This one is just as noteworthy as Lincoln's second addess and I see no reason why it should be cut out. Expatkiwi 20:54 , 21 April 2008 (PDT)

Additional: a number of other presidential inaugural addresses are on Wikipedia (ie Washington, Adams, Kennedy) quoted in full. If these remain, then Lincoln's should as well IMHO

{{helpme}} I'm trying to start a RfC at Talk:New York Pathological Society, but I'm getting an error. I'm not sure why. Thanks. Erechtheus (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what you were doing wrong, unfortunately, but that should have fixed it - I've filed it under Science and Mathematics, since Policy RfC's are supposed to be about changing policies. That may be why the template didn't like it, I don't know. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. You know what to do if it goes wrong again for some reason. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, It's Editor18998 (talk), the person who gave me that auto-delete thingy and I deleted it. Thankyou for understanding and in future I will only delete those auto-delete thingys in EXTREME emergencys.

P.S. I was working on the page while you put that auto-delete tag there and LOADS of the page got deleted.

P.P.S. Don't worry, I eventually rebuilt it!

Kind Reguards, Editor18998 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you PLEASE help both of my articles, The Adventures of Captain Underpants: Collectors' Edition and Captain Underpants and the Attack of the Talking Toilets: Collectors' Edition with the 'Release Dates' and 'Sales'?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor18998 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Talk:New York Pathological Society as well as the user talk exchange between myself and User:Struthious Bandersnatch. I'm starting to get concerned that personal attacks and character assassination is becoming the larger issue than the notability of the subject of the article, and I'm not necessarily holding myself blameless there. Is there a good place for me to take this? Erechtheus (talk) 11:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Erechtheus - following up on our prior discussion, I felt the need to put the article up for wider community review through an AfD, primarily because I couldn't find any other source than the BBC report and a Gulf Times article, both of which do not give any information on why this particular conference should be taken seriously, or who its participants are. Please have a look and give your opinion, and thanks for your help on this issue, Vishnava (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]