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 merge to Berakhah. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Safek Brakha Daoraita[edit]

Safek Brakha Daoraita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essentially a subarticle of Berakhah, dealing specifically with blessings in Judaism that may be Biblical rather than rabbinic in origin. The article is completely lacking context, relevance and understandable English. No scope for merge, so delete suggested. JFW | T@lk 20:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Shlomke (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable scholarly issue. Best left as its own article because its more of an in-depth issue then Berakhah, which is more general and basic. The article has a long way too go before it's wikified, but the main text of the article includes sources so there's no policy basis for deletion at this time.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Berakhah per nominator. IZAK (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Shrink and then merge and redirect to Berakah. No need for an extended entry on this. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• After cutting out all the scholary discussions (pilpul in Hebrew) the meager rests can be merged into Berakhah. Debresser (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete regrettably. Anything relevant can be merged into Berakha. This article is written like a Pilpul lecture and belongs in books examining the details of Halakha. Shlomke (talk) 06:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Berakhah per nom --Shuki (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment Nominator suggested deletion, not merger. Shlomke (talk) 03:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Social matchmaking[edit]

Social matchmaking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Unsourced, reads like an essay or a copypaste from someone's website. GlassCobra 20:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an unsourced essay that's pure original research. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete search doesn't reveal that this is a common phrase or a subject worthy of an article. -Drdisque (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Learning Streams[edit]

Learning Streams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A disputed speedy where the article's creator notes, rightly, that the speedy deletion criterion does not apply to schools. An examination of the website (http://learningstreamsclass.org) reveals that this is apparently some kind of fee-paying tutoring operation for elementary students, not part of the state's school system. As well, there are no reliable sources to indicate that this commercial or semi-commercial entity has any notability and I found none in a brief search. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete I tagged this for a speedy delete beforehand, but there doesn't seem to be a catagory for schools so it ended up here. The page is obviously just nonsence and shouldn't be kept on here.If the article was completly rewritten properly I do think it should stay but not in its current guise. Tresiden (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can not find any significant coverage of this. The general consensus is that most schools are notable, but this one does not appear to be notable. This appears to be the website for the school. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 00:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Harris County, Texas[edit]

List of schools in Harris County, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This would be better served as a category than a list. Harris County is quite large, and it is unusual to see any source discuss "Harris County schools" in general. Most sourcing for this would be synthesis - source Z says that school A is in city B, source Y says that city B is in Harris County, therefore school A must be in Harris County. The sources currently listed (used as part of the synthesis) are self-published anyway. Karanacs (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Categories suck. Nevertheless, both categories and lists can co-exist. Harris County (Houston, TX and suburbs) has lots of independent school districts Harris County, Texas#Education , so a list that can avoid being too indiscriminate or too much like a directory can be a useful navigation tool. Mandsford (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the Houston, Texas area is notable for its plentitude of parochial schools and charter schools. A list can be compatible to a category. Bearian (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lists work well, especially for schools that won't have articles. (example: "Foo Elementary has 420 students..") tedder (talk) 01:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep lists and categories serve different purposes, have different strengths and weaknesses and often work best together. Thryduulf (talk) 11:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Certainly there are lists with less notability than this that live in WP so I'm not going to suggest that this one is less notable than most. But Karanacs is right that to make this list complete it would have to be huge. The question here is what is the real educational value compared to trying to keep the huge list up-to-date? A list of school districts in the county is perhaps bordering on a lack of sufficient merit. But IMHO listing each and every primary/secondary school in a county is a bit over the line. The category, though it obviously is not designed to serve the same purpose, is sufficient in a situation like this. --Mcorazao (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - does not cover parochial and private schools. They should be added or the list should be renamed "List of Public Schools in Harris County, Texas" Racepacket (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. If they gain increased coverage in the future, then we can recreate this; for now, notability is existent but not sufficient. m.o.p 18:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peregrine (U.S. band)[edit]

Peregrine (U.S. band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band, only active since 2007, and has only released 1.5 albums... fails WP:BAND... Adolphus79 (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep:Having more than 2 albuns is one factor of notability, but not a necessary one. Even if we do consider that they have 1.5 albuns, that would still not be a reason to exclude it. With an article on Terrorizer magazine and several profiles on websites such as reverbnation.com, the band seems to meet the necessary criteria. Maziotis (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The two albums have to be on a major record label for that factor to be present. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The "having more than 2 albuns" factor has not been used. Maziotis (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see it being used in addition to the WP:GNG. Also, anybody can create a reverbnation account. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peregrine has been covered in a number of profiles, some of which are not open to anyone.[10][11][12][13] I mentioned this since I believe that this indicates notability, along with the references on the magazine, Terrorizer. Again, the number of albuns does not exclude a band from being considered notable. You may argue that this band does not satisfy the 2 album limit in a major label, but no one has used this as a reason to keep the article. This criterion is not a necessary condition.Maziotis (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable band with albums released on a non-notable label. We have no article for (paraphrasing) "F*** City Records". Too f***ing bad, but that's the way it is. Mandsford (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need one. The band has not been considered notable on the grounds of its label by anyone.Maziotis (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete would seem to fail WP:BAND. Bfigura ^(talk) 22:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific. We have been discussing the criteria used in that policy, above.Maziotis (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your objection. I'm saying that it fails to meet WP:BAND, ie, it passes none of the criteria listed on that page. Or, in other words, it fails them all. None of the references you cite seem to indicate otherwise. Purevolume [14] has about 2 sentences of information. Storminside lists gigs [15]. iVolume [16]] literally has no information, other than links to download. And OpentheCages [17] seems to indicate they performed at a NN event and gives a few paragraphs of info. None provide in depth coverage. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those websites were not referenced as providing in depth coverage. Terrorizer magazine article was. Maziotis (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But still, we would need multiple, reliable sources. It looks like we have found one. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorizer alone offers more than one. Aside from a source that provides significant coverage, Andy Hurley's record label has been covered on the news, which makes it reliable as a source. So, pointing to that essay might be misleading. Maziotis (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On notability: 1.5 albums on a major or notable label; the label F*** City is owned by Andy Hurley, drummer of Fall Out Boy. Though it is a relatively recent label, the work to push it through larger venues is currently in the works. However, being the direct project of a Fall Out Boy member seems notable. F*** City records is a label of Fall Out Boy, Misery Signals and Burning Empires (members of Fall Out Boy, Misery Signals, and 7 Angels, 7 Plagues).
The founder of the band, Kevin Tucker, is a notable person/musician. He has been subjected to Grand Jury Subpoenas as a part of the Green Scare, whom Peregrine has done benefits for. He is a noted anarchist writer and the band is one of the first anarcho-primitivist bands. Two former members were in The Knife Trade with direct ties to front running death metal acts Arsis and Black Dahlia Murder. One of those members has a band with a member of Baroness. Jordan Villella was a member of The Zimmermann Note (Nuclear Blast Records) and Circle of Dead Children (Willowtip). That makes four notable musicians, the criteria is for two.
Furthermore, Peregrine are the originators of a sub-genre, "black and green metal".
In response to references: Terrorizer Magazine has run two bits on Peregrine. Storm Inside has two write ups about the band's albums, noting their significance, but DOES NOT list gigs for the band. Try Babblefish next time. Other sources: Peregrine on FC records, Encyclopedia Metallum entry, Spirit of Metal entry, Flagpole Newspaper write up on the band (Athens, GA), and Anti-Christian Metal interview.
I'd contest the lack of information found easily on the internet isn't for a lack of information, but difficulty in searching a band with named after a bird of prey. (AnarchoPrimitivist (talk) 07:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The band has also toured with Misery Signals and After the Burial. (AnarchoPrimitivist (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

WP:NOTINHERETED. My nonexistent garage band could tour with (what's left of) The Beatles, and that fact wouldn't make my nonexistent garage band any more notable. Also any band that is "br00tal metal" lands on the metal archives. at one time or another That page shows no notability. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Together with other websites like this one, it served to argue for evidence of public interest. This point alone is not even close to meeting the criteria for notability. So, what's your point? Maziotis (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Public interest means next to nothing according to WP:N. TheWeakWilled (T * G)

Did you read my reply? Maziotis (talk) 10:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 speedy delete. G4 JohnCD (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burn This City (Sonic Syndicate song)[edit]

Burn This City (Sonic Syndicate song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another Simonpettersen (talk · contribs) creation... non-notable song which fails WP:NSONGS... Adolphus79 (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non notable, unlikely to ever be. Rehevkor ✉ 16:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I just noticed, article was deleted already at AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burn This City. Speedy? Rehevkor ✉ 02:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• How sad that I can't even remember already putting an article up for deletion... yup, tagged G4... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. The nominator has a good point that this term is not well defined: there is at least one other "Krugman's Law" floating round the blogosphere. JohnCD (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Krugman's Law[edit]

Krugman's Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be a non notable neologism. There are some google search results for "Krugman's Law", but those seem to be exclusively blogs or self-published, and also deal with a great many "Krugman's Law"s, not just this one. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Merge to article Paul Krugman. Make a new section "Krugman's Laws", and put this one there. The nominator's own arguments point to this path. I do note there may be a problem with "Krugman's Law" versus "Krugman's Laws", but this is for the sources to sort out what the names of the various laws are, and therefor what the name of the section should be. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Oh, what will Paul Krugman say tomorrow? Mandsford (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Paul_Krugman#Krugman.27s_Law. I've added the content from this article to his biography in the relevant section. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is clearly non-notable. Only blogs as sources. The redirect should be put on hold until the discussion on its inclusion into the Paul Krugman article is settled. CronopioFlotante (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Concur with "redirect should be put on hold" —Aladdin Sane (talk) 09:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable neologism. Everything in Krugman's blog posting suggests he introduced this jocularly for the nonce.  --Lambiam 01:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie credit[edit]

Zombie credit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neologism. No external sources given except one WSJ article that I cannot find. No claim made for notability. LK (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Still a long way from an encyclopedia topic. Borock (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. non-notable neologism. Not even in urban dictionary! -- Quiddity (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Case bidding[edit]

Case bidding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary and Wikipedia:Coatrack. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than adding links to bidsfromlawyers.com, and seems to be created only for the purpose of adding said link(which have been removed). Also created Case bidding services, another un-encyclopedic article. Has a few remaining links but they seem to vague, incidental and generaly unrelated to establishing notability. Hu12 (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Case bidding is one way to find a lawyer, described by the American Bar Association in one brief paragraph here. There appears to be nothing significant to say about the subject, but the article (essentially a dictionary definition) would serve only as a coatrack to attract the promoters of such websites who will insert references to inconsequential information that link to a commercial service. Topic has no encyclopedic value. Johnuniq (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom, there is no substantive coverage on this subject and is a coatrack for spam. Triplestop x3 02:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article without references to any commercial services - this attorney/client connection service is recognized by the ABA and the Law Journal of the Univ. of Texas. A $2.8 billion industry is not insignificant. This is a relatively new concept, so additional details will be forthcoming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YesIamalawyer (talk • contribs) 08:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC) — YesIamalawyer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep - Article does not fail Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary test because a process is described along with ethical considerations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldcap44 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC) — Goldcap44 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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.

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close To You (JLS song)[edit]

Close To You (JLS song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails notability, can be recreated after song is released and possibly becomes notable Alan - talk 17:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Breaks WP:Crystal guideline. Grim²³★ 19:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. If song satisfies WP:NSONGS at some point, the article can certainly be recreated.  Gongshow ^Talk 04:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL etc. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Bravedog (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy deletion. Non-notable 78.148.3.175 (talk) 23:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Catheline[edit]

John Catheline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails to meet notability guidelines and contains no references. Article also appears to be a self-promotion of a regional wrestler. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: While I managed to find one news item [18], I really don't think there's enough coverage to meet notability standards. Someone else's opinion might differ but that's mine. Pigman☿/talk 18:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 13:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although I'll change this vote if someone can source some of the statements made, such as the stunt work in movies, and PWI 500 claim. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 03:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feald[edit]

Feald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Non-notable search engine, can not find coverage of any significance. Article by SPA. Haakon (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Absolutely no coverage in reliable sources. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG, no discussion in reliable sources found. Johnuniq (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fastream IQ Proxy Server[edit]

Fastream IQ Proxy Server (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Non-notable software product, article by WP:SPA. Could not find significant coverage. Haakon (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unambiguous advertising: Used by thousands of clients worldwide, features Upload/download bandwidth limits on both content/reverse proxies; port-wide and per-connection limiting and IP/domain/country-based firewall as a tighter security measure as well as connections-per-client-IP limiting on both content/reverse proxies. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:BURDEN. No references, no article. Miami33139 (talk) 06:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

White to Play[edit]

White to Play (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'd like to refer to the deletion debate on "Scary Monsters and Super Creeps (FlashForward)". The issue here is not really notability; if enough information on production, reception etc. is added, I'd be fine with separate episode articles (see "No More Good Days" for an example.) The problem is that Wikipedia policy explicitly forbids plot-only description of fictional works. Not only this, but overly detailed plot summaries, such as these, may actually be in violation of U.S. copyright law (see this summary of the Twin Peaks Productions vs. Publications International case.) There is really nothing else of any value in any of these articles; whatever information has been added is poorly sourced and could easily be given on the series main page or the episode list. Lampman (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

137 Sekunden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Black Swan (FlashForward) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Lampman (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree, these plot summaries are much too long and could be a problem. Cutting them down would leave nothing of value. There are already sufficient (brief) plot summaries on the List of FlashForward episodes page. Richard75 (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good precedent for future episode articles. Shii (tock) 19:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Far too much plot detail, potentially a copyright violation; and the only source in the entire article is an IMDB cast listing. Reach Out to the Truth 00:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Brandon (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File Access Manager[edit]

File Access Manager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per WP:BEFORE, WP:N. A simple Google search reveals one third of a million (not a typo) Ghits: [19], and dozens on Google scholar: [20] as well as Google Books: [21]. Alternately, merge into File locking or Microsoft software. Bearian (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't point me to WP:BEFORE when I searched for sources before the nomination. Google hits do not show notability. I would never have expected to see a !vote from an admin based on Google hits. Joe Chill (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:Before is a much abused slight. Don't devalue it for when it's actually needed. I have no doubt that Joe did due diligence before nominating. Shadowjams (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google search: Download sites. Google News and Google Books: Doesn't even mention this software. So why do you want this kept? Joe Chill (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, no slight or offense intended. Normally, I don't use the Google test by itself, but in all that smoke, there must be some fire. If not kept, as I stated before, please merge the content into the other software articles, as the information itself is useful. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable as a proper noun. Shadowjams (talk) 08:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Garbage there is nothing useful here. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

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.

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 redirect. Redirected by nominator- Non-admin closure by Sodam Yat

Doctor who (series 5)[edit]

Doctor who (series 5) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Content of Article simply copied from List of Doctor Who serials RWJP (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Doctor Who serials. Plausibility of such a redirect can be discussed at RfD if necessary. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Sounds like a better option than deleting it, i'll go ahead and do this. RWJP (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator has redirected article. Would appreciate an uninvolved admin or editor comfortable with NAC to close this discussion. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Withdrawn by nom. Sorry, did sloppy research. - Altenmann >t 18:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

María del Carmen Martínez-Bordiú y Franco[edit]

María del Carmen Martínez-Bordiú y Franco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A thoroughly nonnotable person, whose sole achievement is that she is "a Spanish aristocrat and social figure.". Wikipedia is no a Who is Who. A person must have some achievements to deserve an encyclopedic entry. - Altenmann >t 16:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. She has been the subject of significant media coverage. See also the references in the French article at fr:Carmen Martínez-Bordiú y Franco. -- Eastmain (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - some people are notable simply by virtue of who they are, and this seems to me to be one of them. HeartofaDog (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Also, there are at least two books primarily about her, one of which refers to her by a previous name, Carmen Rossi, and several others that discuss her in detail in the context of her family. -- Eastmain (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crash of the Titans 3[edit]

Crash of the Titans 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like speculation according to Google. So, deletion per WP:CBALL Yowuza yadderhouse |meh 16:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Definitely peering into the crystal ball here. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:Crystal. Seems like heavy speculation at this time. ConCompS (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER --Teancum (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources have been provided and no sources can be found. Speculation only. Reach Out to the Truth 23:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Transwiki. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interactions concerning social groups of people in Canada and the US[edit]

Interactions concerning social groups of people in Canada and the US (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article seems to be a good example of WP:SYNTH - compilation of published materials that implies a collective conclusion, thus violating WP:NOR. --SquidSK ^(1MC•log) 16:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to another wiki. Article seems to be a combination of synthesis and a how to guide on proper etiquette. Not really appropriate for an encyclopedia but might be better elsewhere, like Wikibooks. LovesMacs (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wikibooks per WP:NOR. May be more suitable for Wikibooks instead. ConCompS (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I believe my own article should be kept, but with more improvement and linking to related articles in an effort to relate what the article is discussing what appears to be an important social trend of interactions as a form of serious social and legal etiquette in the USA and Canada. I apologize if I defended myself and the article in this way, but the topic has importance in the sociological study of a diverse, multicultural society. Thank you for reading and expression of your concerns, and inform me of the outcome of the AfD decision. + Mike D 26 (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not an expert in the subject, my read of the article is that it's a good study of the material. Unfortunately, I think it does constitute original research, which is not what encylopedia articles are intended to be. You should look for an appropriate forum to publish your research, such as Wikibooks. --SquidSK ^(1MC•log) 13:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to Wikibooks. Per WP:NOR, this is not appropriate for Wikipedia; however, it might be acceptable over there. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki, as per above arguments. Definitely not WP-suitable. --Skud (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki. Looks like original research 86.98.152.246 (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Nothing personal, but I think it should be deleted. The article was originally created by cutting and pasting from some old "Etiquette in Canada and the US" text which had been deleted because it is not what etiquette is, and is just not encyclopedic. There are still carried over bits of things in it that have nothing to do with social groups, and all large social groups are not discussed. Additionally, there are scant references other than some random citations about what latinos/hispanics like to be called. Sorry, but this just isn't an encyclopedic article and considering how much would need to change to make it one, adequate efforts towards doing so have not taken place. Njsustain (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 speedy delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rahim Abdul bin Kajaran[edit]

Rahim Abdul bin Kajaran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

United Democratic Movement (Brunei) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These two articles seem to be a rather alarming hoax by Best1290 (talk · contribs), which has been here since February. The first one, as left by its author on 14 Feb 09, said that the subject "Abolished The Monarchy of Brunei. He was sworn into office on February,12,2009, together with Ahmad Wadil as Vice president." The words "Abolished the monarchy of Brunei" have been removed by another editor, but the infobox still shows him as "President of Brunei."

The CIA World Factbook knows nothing of this; the Sultan is still head of state and government. Nor does it know of the supposed political party. I can find no reference to it which is not a Wikipedia mirror:

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Nor do I find any trace outside WP and mirrors of the other two founders of the party, Adam Wahit and Mark Hardirin. References to the party in Politics of Brunei were inserted in February by Best1290; at the same time he altered the article Brunei to show bin Kajaran as president, but that at least was promptly reverted.

It is worrying that this easily checkable hoax has survived, with the main article tagged "BLPunsourced", for nine months, and spread across the Internet via WP mirrors. Credit to IP user 92.28.35.28 (talk · contribs) for tagging the bin Kajaran article. All the checkable facts here are wrong. Delete both. JohnCD (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax, I can find no evidence of his or the party's existance. Great catch, good legwork and it looks like congratulations will soon be in order ;) J04n(talk page) 17:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Incredibly stupid hoax. How this slipped past the radar, I don't know, and maybe nobody was actually misled by the article, but things like this are a reminder that an encyclopedia that anyone can edit is going to have some nonsense in it. Every other article connected with Best1290 is now suspect. Mandsford (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: G3 as hoax, and take action against creator/primary editor, as this does not appear to be this user's only hoax article. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fashionpop[edit]

Fashionpop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A term which never caught on. No attribution to a reliable source. Zero (relevant) web search hits. Marasmusine (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:NEO. Warrah (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. The arguments that the level of coverage is not significant enough to show notability have not been effectively refuted. Kevin (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steel Guiliana[edit]

Steel Guiliana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am also nominating the following related pages because it is identical and an unnecesary disambig:

Steel Guiliana (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-Notable. Article only mentions one race in a low category of motorsport, Formula BMW, and several other "also rans" in karting. Highly POV article. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 10:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This person was mentioned in Motorsport, they've also been mentioned in the Daily Telegraph (Australia), Northern Territory News (Australia), Africa News and The Herald (Harare), seems notable. The article does need a lot of clean-up though. (I will post the full articles from the newspapers on request). Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you could cite this coverage, it will certainly help. -- Whpq (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There are race result reports where he is mentioned such as this one. But the coverage is not significant. Nor is it numerous. I am not familiar with Formula BMW racing but according to our own article on it, it is an entry level series with a restriction to lower classes FIA racing licenses. If the series is a fully professional one, one could argue that he meets WP:ATHLETE, but the low level of the series and the lack of coverage doesn't establish notability for me. -- Whpq (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, no evidence of satisying wp:athlete. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per Panyd. Cybervoron (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lagarith[edit]

Lagarith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this codec. Joe Chill (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There mostly isn't any, not just for Lagarith though, but for lossless video codecs in general. I've tried myself to find good sources, but have only found 1 to 3 that meet wikipedia's source requirements. I've gone ahead and added the 2 related ones to the article, but it seems a bit off to have the same source on every other article related to lossless video. -- Brandished (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that the topic is marked for deletion, but I did not see any reason given for deleting it. Imagine my position on this. I just came from a very satisfying session of creating lossless video from a major 3D application, and, given the style of my rendering, this codec compresses it better than most of the alternatives. Given its quality, reliability, compression efficiency, and the relative lack of alternatives, this topic is an important one. Please expand the coverage--don't destroy it! Chairease (talk) 05:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No reason? I linked to WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 12:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Can't find any sources on the software. I work with lossless video and audio, so the software may come in handy however. But delete the article. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I believe this is a encoding scheme is noteworthy as it's been consistently shown to outperform most (if not all) other lossless codecs at the editing stage. I don't think there's enough sourced content here to justify this being an independent article though. I think a better idea would be consolidating this into a "lossless video" article with most of the other lossless video codecs (Huffyuv, MSU, FFV1, SheerVideo). Most of them are in the same shape as far as content and have a fair amount of overlapping material. This would also prevent these articles from being re-added later. Brandished (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added a reference. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. JohnCD (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gatineau Park Protection Committee[edit]

Gatineau Park Protection Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This organization does not meet WP:ORG notability requirements. The organization has been mentioned in media articles, but only as "incidental coverage" in articles on other subjects. Furthermore the article was created by and predominantly written by a self-described member of the organization which is the subject of the article. As can best be discerned, the organization is informal in nature, is not registered or incorporated, has no headquarters, publications or website and has only two members. The article has been identified has having serious WP:NPOV and WP:COI issues and has been used predominately as a vehicle to attack the political opponents of the subject of the article, in lieu of the organization itself having a website. Removing all the POV content would result in a very short stub. An in depth review of the article's notability by an admin resulted in a recommendation to delete as non-notable. Talk:New Woodlands Preservation League contains a complete discussion of these issues. Ahunt (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: see also WP:Articles for deletion/New Woodlands Preservation League. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. What about the article Politics of Gatineau Park, which seems to involve the same editor and seems to share COI and POV problems? Racepacket (talk) 15:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to question: as mentioned at Talk:New Woodlands Preservation League, I have asked the same admin to review that article as well and make recommendations. - Ahunt (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and above: not notable per WP:ORG, as well as WP:NPOV, WP:COI and WP:SOAP issues. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Well, I guess you interpret notability very subjectively. The two organizations have: 1) completely changed the official historical interpretation of Gatineau Park; 2) convinced parliamentarians to table 7 bills in both houses of parliament to protect Gatineau Park--and authored the first draft of those bills; 3) disclosed profound managerial problems at the NCC; 4)secured rightful federal ownership of 61.5 sq. km of land in Gatineau Park--thereby completely debunking the myth of "Gatineau Park is not a national park because Quebec refuses to transfer the lands"...; 5) managed to get the NCC to produce the first-ever published technical description of Gatineau Park's boundaries; 6)pressured the government into adopting 2 orders in council to deal with private property in Gatineau Park (thereby stopping a major residential development); 7)placed Gatineau Park protection on the government's legislative agenda;8)wrote a legislative review on Bill C-37 which has been used extensively by the Bloc Québécois in the Commons, and by the Conservatives in the Senate; 9) informed public opinion by writing in the press; 10)informed public opinion by helping set the media agenda on the issue and by being quoted extensively.

They are not only incidental media references. The groups were usually behind breaking the news--such as disclosing a planned residential development inside Gatineau Park; such as revealing the NCC has mislead the public over the history of Gatineau Park, etc.

And what have you done for your country lately? Not notable? By whose definition?

by Wikipedia's definition, specifically this part. PKT(alk) 00:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The groups are clearly notable. The article should stay.--Stoneacres (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide reliable, third-party, published sources that chronicle these achievements? -M.Nelson (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom, it was I that reviewed the article and the related New Woodlands Preservation League and recommended deletion. I have no dispute that the organisation exists and has an admirable purpose but I failed to find any significant secondary coverage of either organisation. Although campaigns by the two individuals identified with the group have been referenced (although mainly COI self references) these are already mentioned in the Politics of Gatineau Park. It is not the only organisation campaigning about the park but COI editing means none of the Gatineau Park articles have a balanced point of view from all involved. This is an article about the New Woodlands Preservation League/Gatineau Park Protection Committee and such fails to provide any significant coverage of the notability of that organisation. MilborneOne (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Below is a sample of the press covering their efforts, as well as excerpts from a speech by NCC chair Marcel Beaudry.

Extended content

Notes pour une allocution de Marcel Beaudry, président de la Commission de la capitale nationale, à l’occasion de l’inauguration de la Salle Roderick Percy Sparks, Le vendredi 8 juillet 2005, Centre des visiteurs du parc de la Gatineau, 10 h 30 “I would like to take this opportunity to thank the New Woodlands Preservation League, especially Mr. Andrew MacDermott and Mr. Jean-Paul Murray, for highlighting the role of Mr. Sparks during our various public meetings and our meeting with the NCC Board of Directors. As a result of their comments, we commissioned a study to examine the influence of interest groups and the socio-political context around the Park’s creation. “Mr. Murray more particularly, was involved and consulted throughout the process and as a result of the study, we are here today to recognize the important role of Roderick Percy Sparks in the establishment of this magnificent national treasure.” Broadbent Acts on Park, By Mike Caesar, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, November 9—Nov. 15, 2005, p. 3. Senator pushes to preserve Gatineau Park: Legislation would prevent sale of parts of property By Dave Rogers, Ottawa Citizen, January 17, 2006, p. B2. Chelsea resident instrumental in Senate bill to protect Gatineau Park By Julie Murray, The West Quebec Post, January 27, 2006, p. 9. Give NCC more power, chairman says: Beaudry tells review panel agency should have greater say in planning of capital region, By Patrick Dare, Ottawa Citizen, November 10, 2006. p. F1. Mentions McDermott, Murray and NWPL. NCC Anarchy Lambasted. By Rowan Lomas, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, November 15, 2006, pp.1-2. Mentions Murray, Mc Dermott and the League (and their presentation before the NCC mandate review panel as the NWPL). Gatineau Park bill passes second reading, by Ian Lordon, Low Down to Hull and Back News, December 20-January 2, 2007, pp. 1-2. Mentions Murray and the League. Hello election, goodbye Gatineau Park bill, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, April 18-24, 2007, p. 12. Mentions Murray and the League. Gatineau Park bill ‘gutted’ by Tories, by Ian Lordon, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, July 11-17, 2007, pp. 1-2. Mentions Murray and the League. Don’t ban Gatineau Park land sales: Cannon Minister says Senate bill ties NCC’s hands; selloffs fly in face of ‘master plan,’ critic says, by William Lin, The Ottawa Citizen, Friday, July 13, 2007, pp. F1 and F7. Mentions Murray and the League. A5 extension to run through Gatineau Park: activist, by Josh Clipperton, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, Sept.26-Oct.2, 2007, p. 3. Mentions Murray and the League. Activist wrong, A5 won’t touch Gatineau Park, letters, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, Oct. 10 – Oct. 16, 2007, page 5. Response from Minister Lawrence Cannon to NWPL on Highway 5. Parkland ownership a puzzler; NCC, federal, Quebec governments bicker over part of Gatineau Park. By Dave Rogers, Ottawa Citizen, January 22, 2008, p. B1. Mentioning Murray in his role as park activist, i.e., as NWPL member. NCC unaware of Gatineau Park housing plan; Owners have right to build, Chelsea mayor says, By Dave Rogers, Ottawa Citizen, January 25, 2008, p. H1. Mentioning Murray in his role as park activist, i.e., as NWPL member. This land is your land, this land is our land, from Lac La Peche, to Hull’s French CEGEP: NCC, activist in dispute over who owns Park land, By Rachel Dares, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, Jan. 30-Feb. 5, 2008, p. 1-19. Mentioning Murray and NWPL. NCC unaware of Gatineau Park development. By Rachel Dares, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, Jan. 30-Feb. 5, 2008, p. 3. Mentioning Murray and NWPL. Gatineau Park boundaries laid out in Bill S-227. By Rachel Dares, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, March 5-11, 2008, p. 2. Mentioning Murray in his role as park activist, i.e., as NWPL member. Gatineau Park supporters lobby minister to step in, By Dave Rogers, The Ottawa Citizen, March 7, 2008, p. F3. Mentioning Murray as member of the Gatineau Park Protection Coalition, i.e., as NWPL member. Bill to boost park’s status urged, By Laura Czekaj, The Ottawa Sun, April 3, 2008, p. 21. Mentioning Murray as member of the Gatineau Park Protection Coalition, i.e., as NWPL member. Gatineau Park plea rattles NCC meeting, By Katie Daubs, Ottawa Citizen, April 5, 2008, p. D-1. About a speech Murray made as NWPL president before the NCC board. “Everything was going according to plan until Jean-Paul Murray got up to speak… It was Thursday night, and interest groups were having their annual chance to make a presentation to the National Capital Commission’s board of directors. .. The meeting had the air of a Toastmasters session as each presentation was timed with a red light… Then Mr. Murray got up to speak. When he finished his five-minute plea to stop private development in Gatineau Park, the Panorama Room at the National Arts Centre erupted in applause.“ Mobilisation à Chelsea. Le Droit, 8 avril 2008, p. 4. About Murray and the League. Gatineau Park group calls for development freeze. CBC Radio Ottawa. April 8, 2008. Mentioning Murray as member of the Gatineau Park Protection Coalition, i.e., as NWPL member. “Jean-Paul Murray of the Gatineau Park Protection Coalition told the meeting that the National Capital Commission should enact a law forbidding any development in the park.” Gatineau Park is like “Swiss cheese”: private landowner. By Rachel Dares, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, April 9-April 15, 2008, p. 3. Mentioning Murray and NWPL. Group argues for legal protection of Gatineau Park. By Patrick Dare, The Ottawa Citizen, April 22, 2008, p. D3. Mentioning Murray and NWPL. NCC buys former Carman Trails site to stop development. By Rachel Dares, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, May 28-June 3, 2008, p. 7. Mentioning Murray as member of the Gatineau Park Protection Coalition, i.e., as NWPL member. Gatineau Park would cost ‘significantly more’ as national park. Monday, July 28, 2008, CBC News. Interview with Murray as park activist, i.e., as NWPL member. Parc de la Gatineau, Le Téléjournal de Radi-Canada (Ottawa), le 28 juillet 2008. TV interview with GPPC member Jean-Paul Murray over the mudding of Meech Lake. Too much Meech mud . By Laura Czekaj, The Ottawa Sun, July 29, 2008, p. 4. (Also broadcast on the Canadian Press News Wire and picked up by the North Bay Nugget). Quotes Coalition member Murray, ergo as member of NWPL. Federal investigation launched into environmental damage at Meech Lake, CPW, July 29, 2008 (Published in the North Bay Nugget, July 29, p. A4, with title: “Feds investigate Meech Lake damage: Lake treated like ‘garbage’ can – coalition”). Quotes Coalition member Murray, ergo as member of NWPL. Group fears new homes are muddying Meech, By Jean-François Bertrand, The Ottawa Citizen, July 29, 2008, p. C-1. Quotes Coalition member Murray, ergo as member of NWPL. “‘On paper’ group says it does heavy lifting to protect park: another Gatineau Park Senate bill tabled,” by Cynthia Vukets, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, Feb. 11-Feb.17, 2009, p. 7. Profiles NWPL. NCC, Quebec in tax fight: Bickering over who should pay property taxes on CEGEP, Lac la Pêche land, by Laura Czekaj, Ottawa Sun, March 17, 2008, p.14. Quotes Murray as GPPC co-chair. “Quebec drops tax fight with NCC: Resolution reached over payments for land bordering Gatineau Park,” by John Willing, the Ottawa Sun, March 21, 2009. Quotes McDermott as GPPC co-chair. “Watchdog claims victory in spat over portion of Gatineau Park: Disputed land at CÉGEP belongs to province,” by Laura Payton, The Ottawa Citizen, March 22, 2009, p. A5. Quotes McDermott as GPPC co-chair. Fin d’une longue dispute, Radio rock détente, Gatineau, le 23 mars 2009 Source : Info Astral Media « La fin d'un méli-mélo au lac La Pêche», par Charles Thériault, Le Droit, le 28 mars 2009, p. 22. “Ottawa MP tables motion to protect Gatineau Park,” The Low Down to Hull and Back News, April 29-May 5, 2009, p. 5. “Surprising moves,” by Nikki Mantell, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, May 13-19, 2009, p. 4. Mentions Murray and League. “Manitoba senator emerges as saviour of Gatineau Park: Mira Spivak fighting to give Crown jewel federal protection,” by Dave Rogers, The Ottawa Citizen, May 18, 2009, pp. A1 Gatineau Park bill draws flak,” by Laura Czekaj, Ottawa Sun, June 10, 2009. Quotes GPPC co-chair McDermott. Un « pas dans la bonne direction », par Patrice Gaudreault, Le Droit, le 10 juin 2009. La Commission St-Onge, le mardi 9 juin 2009, Tag Radio X, 96,5, Gatineau, entrevue, 12h14-12h20. Radio interview with Jean-Paul Murray as co-chair of GPPC. “All in a Day,” CBC Radio Ottawa, 91.5 FM, June 9, 2009 “Gatineau Park.” Interview between Adrian Harewood and Gilles Paquet, NCC Mandate Review chair. Jean-Paul Murray quoted as co-chair of GPPC. “Cannon’s Park Gatineau Park Bill Controversial,” by Julie Murray, The West Quebec Post, June 12-18, 2009, p. 1. Names Murray and McDermott as GPPC co-chairs. “Meech Lake boat ban earns praise,” Ottawa Sun, Sunday, July 12, 2009 (also on Sherbrooke Record’s Web site). Talks about GPPC praising NCC policy. « Moins de bateaux motorisés sur le lac Meech : La CCN entend mieux protéger les écosystèmes du parc de la Gatineau », par François Pierre Dufault, Le Droit, le 13 juillet 2009, p.5. « Moins de bateaux sur le Lac Meech », Radio énergie, 104,1, Gatineau, le lundi 13 juillet 2009 (aussi diffusé sur les ondes de 94,9, Rockdétente). “NCC motorboat restriction earns park protectors’ praise,” by Trevor Greenway, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, July 15-July 21, 2009, p. 10. “Harper, Charest announce Highway 5 extension to Wakefield,” by Dave Rogers, The Ottawa Citizen, August 15, 2009. Quotes McDermott as co-chair of GPPC. « Projet de loi C-37 portant sur l’avenir du parc de la Gatineau: les groupes écolos promettent de réagir », par Philippe Orfali, le Droit, le 25 août 2009. Half-page article about the GPPC and its paper on Bill C-37. “New house in park has protectors crying foul,” by Mark Burgess, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, September 2-8, 2009, p. 3. About GPPC. “Home goes up inside Gatineau Park,” by Lily Ryan, The West Quebec Post, September 4-10, 2009, p. 3. About GPPC. “NCC blamed for failing to protect Gatineau Park,” by Dave Rogers, The Ottawa Citizen, September 4, 2009 p. B3. Featuring Murray breaking the news of another Master plan violation and construction inside the park.

And there are others, relating the story of the League, Percy Sparks. You might look at the study “The Creation and Early Development of Gatineau Park,” by Filion and Gagnon. Commissioned as a result of the League's first presentation to the Board, the study mentions Murray and the League on pages 5, 6, 25 and 26.--Stoneacres (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and for the other reasons given. The article Politics of Gatineau Park should go the same way unless it can be brought within the scope of wikipedia which looks unlikely. --KenWalker | Talk 02:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comment: as mentioned above, I have asked the same admin to review Politics of Gatineau Park as well and make recommendations. In the meantime edits to that article or comments on its talk page are welcome. - Ahunt (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at Politics of Gatineau Park and my recommendation is that should be nominated for deletion as well, it has multiple copyright and conflict of interest problems. MilborneOne (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if there are secondary sources that are french language publications and the park is located in Quebec, would this article find a happier home on French Wikipedia? Is there such an article already, but we don't link to it? I found the French article on Gatineau Park, but it does not appear to link to a French verison of the Gatineau Park Protection Committee, Politics of Gatineau Park or New Woodlands Preservation League. I wonder if the creation of an English language folk is insulating the three articles from the scrutiny of French-speaking editors that may have more expertise on the subject than we do. (In theory, if I wanted to write a POV fork on the New York Yankees, I would have more luck posting the POV content fork on a French or Dutch wikipedia than on the English wikipedia.)

I don't understand how User:Stoneacres can list all of these references above, but not work them into the article in a meaningful way. Nor have I been able to determine whether these are independent, third party reliable sources. Do these news stories cover the NWPL or GPPC or merely provide an incidental reference? Racepacket (talk) 06:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have found many of those refs listed above and the ones I have found contain only a mention of the organization name while discussing other topics, such as development in the park, highway construction, etc. As User:Stoneacres mentions at Talk:New_Woodlands_Preservation_League#Ways_to_move_forward, some of the articles don't even mention the GPPC or NWPL, but quote the two individuals who are members of the organizations. He says: "All articles quoting Messrs. Murray and McDermott on Gatineau Park are to be taken as articles on NWPL/GPPC, since they were acting in their capacity as members of those organizations." - Ahunt (talk) 12:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahunt is being dishonest. The great majority of those articles cover issues that were brought to the media's attention by the League/GPPC and wouldn't exist without those groups. We have shone the ligth on the darkness of the NCC's management of Gatineau Park. They clearly chronicle the League/GPPC's activities, and testify beyond the shadow of a doubt to their notability precisely in accordance with Wikipedia's rules.

Funny how Ahunt dismisses those articles without having read every one of them. Go ahead and be dishonest, and lead your little wiki lynchmob. Go ahead and destroy knowledge.--Stoneacres (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stoneacres: Rather than slinging insults around, please read WP:CIVIL. - Ahunt (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Notification of WP:AFD nomination Politics of Gatineau Park - Several contributors to this debate have asked about this article. Following the recommendations of User:MilborneOne it has been nominated for deletion. Interested editors are invited to participate in the AFD debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics of Gatineau Park. - Ahunt (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahunt's manic-depressive, martial law behaviour is what's insulting. Perhaps he should read Wikipedia's rules on trying to "out" somebody. It's clear Ahunt created both the GPPC/NWPL sites to out its members. Reading the Gatineau Park/Politics of Gatineau Park articles confirms he baited a member of that organization--ordering him, among other things, to produce the name of a GPPC member quoted in the press, although that name was widely available.

And now that he thinks he's outed them, he speciously contends that they are not notable, because they are an informal organization. In total disregard for the overwhelming evidence that they have pretty much set the agenda on the park file over the last 6 years, he suggests the sites be deleted.

You're not in the army anymore private. Time you started acting like a civilian. Talking to a shrink might help you with your obsessive need to give orders and be in control.--Stoneacres (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stoneacres: please read WP:CIVIL, which says: "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict. Editors are human, capable of mistakes, so a few, minor incidents of incivility are not in themselves a major concern. A behavioral pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable, and may result in blocks if it rises to the level of harassment or egregious personal attacks. A single act of incivility can also cross the line if it is severe enough: for instance, extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person can all result in blocks without consideration of a pattern." You are required to be civil hereand your insults and personal attacks are not acceptable. - Ahunt (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:Stoneacres, thank you for giving me credit for starting this article and Gatineau Park Protection Committee, but if you check the records here and here, you will see that actually you started both those articles. - Ahunt (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Organization fails WP's notability guidelines. Article's purpose is a soapbox, and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. PKT(alk) 02:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - concur that this article is being used as a soapbox -- Whpq (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. JohnCD (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Sap[edit]

Steve Sap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable per WP:ENT, unreferenced, no significant coverage online from reliable sourced per WP:RS. Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 15:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No example of WP:N from any WP:RS. Everything about him or his label are from myspace/Twitter and the like. No secondary sources mention him. Angryapathy (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP i mean come on. this person went all out to make this article on this guy and it look pretty solid. they also give enough sites to prove this person is real and when i went to the links i kind of enjoyed his music.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZoneFourtt (talk • contribs) 15:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC) — ZoneFourtt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Oh give me a break. If I were to spend hours and hours making an article about my non existent dog would you say keep that article too? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP It's good enough with just enough information. At least this page as links that actually go to places that envelope him "steve sap". I say, Just Let It Be! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marine1109 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC) — Marine1109 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• KEEP I agree with both of you guys. But Marine you need to type better.lol. sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InerCity (talk • contribs) 15:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC) — InerCity (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Twitter as a source? You have to be kidding. Also closing admin take into account the spamming by SPA's such as the above. DarkAudit (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP So your telling me every other wikipedia account can use a twitter link but this person can't? hmmmmm. just let the page live. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeraldMunts (talk • contribs) 16:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC) — GeraldMunts (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please have a read of WP:OTHERSTUFF. MuffledThud (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please note that an AFD discussion is not a vote, and piling lots of "Keep" votes here won't ensure that a page stays up. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing WP:MUSIC plain and simple. No decent sources to support retention. onebravemonkey 16:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article demonstrates the musician has YouTube, Twitter, and MySpace accounts, but I can find no RS sufficient to pass WP:MUSIC.  Gongshow ^Talk 18:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No verifiable third-party sources. No establishment of notability. If he gets to keep the entry then I think everyone here deserves their own wikipedia page. ;) Buddy23Lee (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Added not a vote template. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I'm not seeing any reliable sources that show he comes anywhere close to passing WP:MUSIC. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Also the page is either an autobiography, the photo doesn't belong to the uploader (who put it in the public domain), or copyright for the photo has been transferred (which I highly doubt it is). TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)urc[reply]
• Delete per above. SPA, and probably an autobiography. No sources. Racepacket (talk) 11:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have filed a sockpuppet report on the four users who voted keep above. Racepacket (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello Everyone. I was the one that created this account. I'm just a fan of underground music and I know him personally. I wanted to make a Wikipedia account on Steve so everyone can get some information on him. I'm sorry if it doesn't meet the standards of the everyday wikipedia reader. as for my account being "sockpuppet" i still don't really understand that. But I respect everyones opinion, I hold nothing back from no one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biggcee89 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"everyone can get some information on him"- I suggest making him a website instead of a wikipedia article. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment User:Steve Sap and many of the voters here have been permanently blocked as sockpuppets. Racepacket (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. JohnCD (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Woodlands Preservation League[edit]

New Woodlands Preservation League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This organization does not meet WP:ORG notability requirements. The organization has been mentioned in media articles, but only as "incidental coverage" in articles on other subjects. Furthermore the article was created by and predominantly written by a self-described member of the organization which is the subject of the article. As can best be discerned, the organization is informal in nature, is not registered or incorporated, has no headquarters, publications or website and has only two members. The article has been identified has having serious WP:NPOV and WP:COI issues and has been used predominately as a vehicle to attack the political opponents of the subject of the article, in lieu of the organization itself having a website. Removing all the POV content would result in a very short stub. An in depth review of the article's notability by an admin resulted in a recommendation to delete as non-notable. Talk:New Woodlands Preservation League contains a complete discussion of these issues. Ahunt (talk) 15:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: see also WP:Articles for deletion/Gatineau Park Protection Committee. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. What about the article Politics of Gatineau Park which appears to involve the same editors and has the same COI and POV problems? Racepacket (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to question: as mentioned at Talk:New Woodlands Preservation League, I have asked the same admin to review that article as well and make recommendations. - Ahunt (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now looked at Politics of Gatineau Park and my recommendation is that should be nominated for deletion as well, it has multiple copyright and conflict of interest problems. MilborneOne (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Offends WP:SOAP. All references seem to be primary sources so it fails the requirement from WP:ORG that it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. --KenWalker | Talk 16:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above: not notable per WP:ORG, as well as WP:NPOV, WP:COI and WP:SOAP issues. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Well, I guess you interpret notability very subjectively. The two organizations have: 1) completely changed the official historical interpretation of Gatineau Park; 2) convinced parliamentarians to table 7 bills in both houses of parliament to protect Gatineau Park--and authored the first draft of those bills; 3) disclosed profound managerial problems at the NCC; 4)secured rightful federal ownership of 61.5 sq. km of land in Gatineau Park--thereby completely debunking the myth of "Gatineau Park is not a national park because Quebec refuses to transfer the lands"...; 5) managed to get the NCC to produce the first-ever published technical description of Gatineau Park's boundaries; 6)pressured the government into adopting 2 orders in council to deal with private property in Gatineau Park (thereby stopping a major residential development); 7)placed Gatineau Park protection on the government's legislative agenda;8)wrote a legislative review on Bill C-37 which has been used extensively by the Bloc Québécois in the Commons, and by the Conservatives in the Senate; 9) informed public opinion by writing in the press; 10)informed public opinion by helping set the media agenda on the issue and by being quoted extensively.

And what have you done for your country lately? Not notable? By whose definition?

The groups are clearly notable. The article should stay.--Stoneacres (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Can you provide reliable, third-party, published sources that chronicle these achievements? -M.Nelson (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears that the article Politics of Gatineau Park has gone through more collaboration and vetting that the other two. However, both New Woodlands Preservation League and Gatineau Park Protection Committee are not properly sourced to independent third party books or news reports. Further, there is a big difference in having bills introduced and killed in committee year after year and having legislation adopted. These organizations may be very meritorious and may perform valuable behind-the-scenes work, but Wikipedia requires reliable, secondary sources. Racepacket (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Below is a sample of the press covering their efforts, as well as excerpts from a speech by NCC chair Marcel Beaudry.

Extended content

Notes pour une allocution de Marcel Beaudry, président de la Commission de la capitale nationale, à l’occasion de l’inauguration de la Salle Roderick Percy Sparks, Le vendredi 8 juillet 2005, Centre des visiteurs du parc de la Gatineau, 10 h 30 “I would like to take this opportunity to thank the New Woodlands Preservation League, especially Mr. Andrew MacDermott and Mr. Jean-Paul Murray, for highlighting the role of Mr. Sparks during our various public meetings and our meeting with the NCC Board of Directors. As a result of their comments, we commissioned a study to examine the influence of interest groups and the socio-political context around the Park’s creation. “Mr. Murray more particularly, was involved and consulted throughout the process and as a result of the study, we are here today to recognize the important role of Roderick Percy Sparks in the establishment of this magnificent national treasure.” Broadbent Acts on Park, By Mike Caesar, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, November 9—Nov. 15, 2005, p. 3. Senator pushes to preserve Gatineau Park: Legislation would prevent sale of parts of property By Dave Rogers, Ottawa Citizen, January 17, 2006, p. B2. Chelsea resident instrumental in Senate bill to protect Gatineau Park By Julie Murray, The West Quebec Post, January 27, 2006, p. 9. Give NCC more power, chairman says: Beaudry tells review panel agency should have greater say in planning of capital region, By Patrick Dare, Ottawa Citizen, November 10, 2006. p. F1. Mentions McDermott, Murray and NWPL. NCC Anarchy Lambasted. By Rowan Lomas, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, November 15, 2006, pp.1-2. Mentions Murray, Mc Dermott and the League (and their presentation before the NCC mandate review panel as the NWPL). Gatineau Park bill passes second reading, by Ian Lordon, Low Down to Hull and Back News, December 20-January 2, 2007, pp. 1-2. Mentions Murray and the League. Hello election, goodbye Gatineau Park bill, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, April 18-24, 2007, p. 12. Mentions Murray and the League. Gatineau Park bill ‘gutted’ by Tories, by Ian Lordon, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, July 11-17, 2007, pp. 1-2. Mentions Murray and the League. Don’t ban Gatineau Park land sales: Cannon Minister says Senate bill ties NCC’s hands; selloffs fly in face of ‘master plan,’ critic says, by William Lin, The Ottawa Citizen, Friday, July 13, 2007, pp. F1 and F7. Mentions Murray and the League. A5 extension to run through Gatineau Park: activist, by Josh Clipperton, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, Sept.26-Oct.2, 2007, p. 3. Mentions Murray and the League. Activist wrong, A5 won’t touch Gatineau Park, letters, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, Oct. 10 – Oct. 16, 2007, page 5. Response from Minister Lawrence Cannon to NWPL on Highway 5. Parkland ownership a puzzler; NCC, federal, Quebec governments bicker over part of Gatineau Park. By Dave Rogers, Ottawa Citizen, January 22, 2008, p. B1. Mentioning Murray in his role as park activist, i.e., as NWPL member. NCC unaware of Gatineau Park housing plan; Owners have right to build, Chelsea mayor says, By Dave Rogers, Ottawa Citizen, January 25, 2008, p. H1. Mentioning Murray in his role as park activist, i.e., as NWPL member. This land is your land, this land is our land, from Lac La Peche, to Hull’s French CEGEP: NCC, activist in dispute over who owns Park land, By Rachel Dares, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, Jan. 30-Feb. 5, 2008, p. 1-19. Mentioning Murray and NWPL. NCC unaware of Gatineau Park development. By Rachel Dares, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, Jan. 30-Feb. 5, 2008, p. 3. Mentioning Murray and NWPL. Gatineau Park boundaries laid out in Bill S-227. By Rachel Dares, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, March 5-11, 2008, p. 2. Mentioning Murray in his role as park activist, i.e., as NWPL member. Gatineau Park supporters lobby minister to step in, By Dave Rogers, The Ottawa Citizen, March 7, 2008, p. F3. Mentioning Murray as member of the Gatineau Park Protection Coalition, i.e., as NWPL member. Bill to boost park’s status urged, By Laura Czekaj, The Ottawa Sun, April 3, 2008, p. 21. Mentioning Murray as member of the Gatineau Park Protection Coalition, i.e., as NWPL member. Gatineau Park plea rattles NCC meeting, By Katie Daubs, Ottawa Citizen, April 5, 2008, p. D-1. About a speech Murray made as NWPL president before the NCC board. “Everything was going according to plan until Jean-Paul Murray got up to speak… It was Thursday night, and interest groups were having their annual chance to make a presentation to the National Capital Commission’s board of directors. .. The meeting had the air of a Toastmasters session as each presentation was timed with a red light… Then Mr. Murray got up to speak. When he finished his five-minute plea to stop private development in Gatineau Park, the Panorama Room at the National Arts Centre erupted in applause.“ Mobilisation à Chelsea. Le Droit, 8 avril 2008, p. 4. About Murray and the League. Gatineau Park group calls for development freeze. CBC Radio Ottawa. April 8, 2008. Mentioning Murray as member of the Gatineau Park Protection Coalition, i.e., as NWPL member. “Jean-Paul Murray of the Gatineau Park Protection Coalition told the meeting that the National Capital Commission should enact a law forbidding any development in the park.” Gatineau Park is like “Swiss cheese”: private landowner. By Rachel Dares, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, April 9-April 15, 2008, p. 3. Mentioning Murray and NWPL. Group argues for legal protection of Gatineau Park. By Patrick Dare, The Ottawa Citizen, April 22, 2008, p. D3. Mentioning Murray and NWPL. NCC buys former Carman Trails site to stop development. By Rachel Dares, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, May 28-June 3, 2008, p. 7. Mentioning Murray as member of the Gatineau Park Protection Coalition, i.e., as NWPL member. Gatineau Park would cost ‘significantly more’ as national park. Monday, July 28, 2008, CBC News. Interview with Murray as park activist, i.e., as NWPL member. Parc de la Gatineau, Le Téléjournal de Radi-Canada (Ottawa), le 28 juillet 2008. TV interview with GPPC member Jean-Paul Murray over the mudding of Meech Lake. Too much Meech mud . By Laura Czekaj, The Ottawa Sun, July 29, 2008, p. 4. (Also broadcast on the Canadian Press News Wire and picked up by the North Bay Nugget). Quotes Coalition member Murray, ergo as member of NWPL. Federal investigation launched into environmental damage at Meech Lake, CPW, July 29, 2008 (Published in the North Bay Nugget, July 29, p. A4, with title: “Feds investigate Meech Lake damage: Lake treated like ‘garbage’ can – coalition”). Quotes Coalition member Murray, ergo as member of NWPL. Group fears new homes are muddying Meech, By Jean-François Bertrand, The Ottawa Citizen, July 29, 2008, p. C-1. Quotes Coalition member Murray, ergo as member of NWPL. “‘On paper’ group says it does heavy lifting to protect park: another Gatineau Park Senate bill tabled,” by Cynthia Vukets, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, Feb. 11-Feb.17, 2009, p. 7. Profiles NWPL. NCC, Quebec in tax fight: Bickering over who should pay property taxes on CEGEP, Lac la Pêche land, by Laura Czekaj, Ottawa Sun, March 17, 2008, p.14. Quotes Murray as GPPC co-chair. “Quebec drops tax fight with NCC: Resolution reached over payments for land bordering Gatineau Park,” by John Willing, the Ottawa Sun, March 21, 2009. Quotes McDermott as GPPC co-chair. “Watchdog claims victory in spat over portion of Gatineau Park: Disputed land at CÉGEP belongs to province,” by Laura Payton, The Ottawa Citizen, March 22, 2009, p. A5. Quotes McDermott as GPPC co-chair. Fin d’une longue dispute, Radio rock détente, Gatineau, le 23 mars 2009 Source : Info Astral Media « La fin d'un méli-mélo au lac La Pêche», par Charles Thériault, Le Droit, le 28 mars 2009, p. 22. “Ottawa MP tables motion to protect Gatineau Park,” The Low Down to Hull and Back News, April 29-May 5, 2009, p. 5. “Surprising moves,” by Nikki Mantell, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, May 13-19, 2009, p. 4. Mentions Murray and League. “Manitoba senator emerges as saviour of Gatineau Park: Mira Spivak fighting to give Crown jewel federal protection,” by Dave Rogers, The Ottawa Citizen, May 18, 2009, pp. A1 Gatineau Park bill draws flak,” by Laura Czekaj, Ottawa Sun, June 10, 2009. Quotes GPPC co-chair McDermott. Un « pas dans la bonne direction », par Patrice Gaudreault, Le Droit, le 10 juin 2009. La Commission St-Onge, le mardi 9 juin 2009, Tag Radio X, 96,5, Gatineau, entrevue, 12h14-12h20. Radio interview with Jean-Paul Murray as co-chair of GPPC. “All in a Day,” CBC Radio Ottawa, 91.5 FM, June 9, 2009 “Gatineau Park.” Interview between Adrian Harewood and Gilles Paquet, NCC Mandate Review chair. Jean-Paul Murray quoted as co-chair of GPPC. “Cannon’s Park Gatineau Park Bill Controversial,” by Julie Murray, The West Quebec Post, June 12-18, 2009, p. 1. Names Murray and McDermott as GPPC co-chairs. “Meech Lake boat ban earns praise,” Ottawa Sun, Sunday, July 12, 2009 (also on Sherbrooke Record’s Web site). Talks about GPPC praising NCC policy. « Moins de bateaux motorisés sur le lac Meech : La CCN entend mieux protéger les écosystèmes du parc de la Gatineau », par François Pierre Dufault, Le Droit, le 13 juillet 2009, p.5. « Moins de bateaux sur le Lac Meech », Radio énergie, 104,1, Gatineau, le lundi 13 juillet 2009 (aussi diffusé sur les ondes de 94,9, Rockdétente). “NCC motorboat restriction earns park protectors’ praise,” by Trevor Greenway, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, July 15-July 21, 2009, p. 10. “Harper, Charest announce Highway 5 extension to Wakefield,” by Dave Rogers, The Ottawa Citizen, August 15, 2009. Quotes McDermott as co-chair of GPPC. « Projet de loi C-37 portant sur l’avenir du parc de la Gatineau: les groupes écolos promettent de réagir », par Philippe Orfali, le Droit, le 25 août 2009. Half-page article about the GPPC and its paper on Bill C-37. “New house in park has protectors crying foul,” by Mark Burgess, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, September 2-8, 2009, p. 3. About GPPC. “Home goes up inside Gatineau Park,” by Lily Ryan, The West Quebec Post, September 4-10, 2009, p. 3. About GPPC. “NCC blamed for failing to protect Gatineau Park,” by Dave Rogers, The Ottawa Citizen, September 4, 2009 p. B3. Featuring Murray breaking the news of another Master plan violation and construction inside the park.

And there are others, relating the story of the League, Percy Sparks. You might look at the study “The Creation and Early Development of Gatineau Park,” by Filion and Gagnon. Commissioned as a result of the League's first presentation to the Board, the study mentions Murray and the League on pages 5, 6, 25 and 26.--Stoneacres (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom, it was I that reviewed the article and the related Gatineau Park Protection Committee and recommended deletion. I have no dispute that the organisation exists and has an admirable purpose but I failed to find any significant secondary coverage of either organisation. Although campaigns by the two individuals identified with the group have been referenced (although mainly COI self references) these are already mentioned in the Politics of Gatineau Park. It is not the only organisation campaigning about the park but COI editing means none of the Gatineau Park articles have a balanced point of view from all involved. This is an article about the New Woodlands Preservation League/Gatineau Park Protection Committee and such fails to provide any significant coverage of the notability of that organisation. MilborneOne (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The 2,000 word response by the article's creator and the confirms my feeling that this is and the GPPC article are WP:SOAPBOX. "And what have you done for your country lately?" kind of sums it up. Wikipedia doesn't exist for the purpose of doing something for your country. Mandsford (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Notification of WP:AFD nomination Politics of Gatineau Park - Several contributors to this debate have asked about this article. Following the recommndations of User:MilborneOne it has been nominated for deletion. Interested editors are invited to participate in the AFD debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics of Gatineau Park. - Ahunt (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ahunt, the manic, and his little lynch mob ride again.--Stoneacres (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Stoneacres: please read WP:CIVIL, which says: "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict. Editors are human, capable of mistakes, so a few, minor incidents of incivility are not in themselves a major concern. A behavioral pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable, and may result in blocks if it rises to the level of harassment or egregious personal attacks. A single act of incivility can also cross the line if it is severe enough: for instance, extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person can all result in blocks without consideration of a pattern." You are required to be civil hereand your insults and personal attacks are not acceptable. - Ahunt (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By creating, I meant creating a link to be filled in. And I didn't do that. And if you didn't then I withdraw the claim.

However, bottom line, Ahunt has been on a rampage to out members of the GPPC/NWPL. And I still believe he has been canvassing to have the articles deleted--even if the evidence clearly contradicts his main argument: that they are not notable.

I have provided ample notability evidence; yet Ahunt keeps saying they are "superficial."

Wow... --Stoneacres (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please review WP:RS and WP:N. If there is substantial coverage by a non-local news organization, list it and I will consider changing my vote. Racepacket (talk) 12:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. CBC, CTV, the Ottawa Citizen, The Ottawa Sun, Radio Canada, etc. Which part of these national organizations which have covered the NWPL/GPPC is not notable. Have you read the list I provided? Or have you just jumped onto the deletion bandwagon?

According to the Wikipedia references above, that list more than confirms the notability of the organizations. The GPPC/NWPL are not notable in terms of how many members they have; they are notable in terms of what they have achieved, both in terms of effective change to a sorry situation, and in terms of providing the public an accurate picture of what is going on.

Have they served the public interest? Yes. Have they broadened knowledge of an issue? Indubitably. Would it serve knowledge to expunge them from Wikipedia? You decide.

And let the darkness fall all round...--Stoneacres (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the sourcing does not show notability for this group -- Whpq (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete" (I've removed my previous comment, as no one else has commented on it yet). While the Senate committee records are somewhat persuasive, they alone are not enough to establish notability. And the NCC honours and Citizen cite for Sparks in no way establish notability for this organization. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, I was about to comment that though the Citizen article does credit Murray with a role in recognising Percy Sparks, but it does not appear to mention the NWPL in any way. Note that I can't find the entire article, but this quote shows that, as far as the Citizen is concerned, the NWPL was not involved. -M.Nelson (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes at this point there seems to be more of a case for an article about Murray as a notable activist and historian. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Mnelson: If you read the sources I provided, you would have seen that NCC Chairman Beaudry mentioned the NWPL in his speech dedicating the Sparks Hall. The whole reason the NCC dedicated the Sparks Hall was as a result of the presentation the NWPL made to the board in 2003. Ergo: the Citizen article is about the achievement of the NWPL. Although it mentions Murray, it is mentioning his activities as NWPL member.

Radically changing the official history of Gatineau Park, not notable? 50 news articles, not notable?

Below is the full article on the Sparks Hall dedication. Recognizing Murray's contribution as NWPL member--though not mentioning it by name. And Murray's guest column which the Citizen article references below was signed "Jean-Paul Murray is vice-president of the NWPL."

Not notable? You should do proper research before making unfounded statements advancing your ... point of view--Stoneacres (talk) 04:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa Citizen: "Gatineau Park visionary gets his due"

Gatineau Park visionary gets his due: The NCC is finally recognizing Roderick Percy Sparks’ key role in preserving the capital region's finest piece of greenspace, writes Patrick Dare. The Ottawa Citizen, Saturday, July 9, 2005, p. E3 In the 1950s, Roderick Percy Sparks used to gather his grandchildren at “Big Pine,” an old-growth white pine tree in Gatineau Park, and have them join hands around the tree's massive trunk. Yesterday, Jean-Paul Murray stood against the same majestic old tree and closed his eyes in triumph. Mr. Murray has fought for years to have the former Ottawa businessman's role in the founding of the 36,000-hectare Gatineau Park recognized. He spent years sifting through archives, and then argued in a 2003 Citizen guest column that the National Capital Commission had mistakenly ignored Mr. Sparks in its literature. That historical oversight was corrected yesterday when NCC chairman Marcel Beaudry named the exhibit hall at the Gatineau Park visitor centre in Chelsea after Mr. Sparks, a well-known member of Ottawa's business community from the 1930s to the late 1950s. The NCC had commissioned a study into the history of the park that concluded Mr. Sparks played a major role in its creation, though singling out one person as park founder was not possible. NCC officials and a number of descendants of Roderick Percy Sparks, including his eight-year-old great-grandson, Adrian Sparks, gathered at the visitor centre and remembered a man who loved nature. “He taught me when I was very young, if I was ever worried or agitated or upset, I could always go into the woods and I was surrounded by nature, which was really my best friend. The park is a testament to that set of values,” said Sandy Crawley, a grandson. “He taught that to me when I was four years old and it still serves me now that I'm 57. He had a profound appreciation for nature.” Many of Mr. Sparks' grandchildren wrote brief tributes to him. Michal Anne Crawley remembered “Pop” as a tree-planter and a forest path-maker, someone who showed children how to appreciate the natural world. “We were never afraid to wander at will,” she wrote. Mr. Sparks built a dam on a creek that ran through the family's Meech Lake Road farm property, creating a pond that the children would skate on in the winter. When Mr. Sparks gathered children around the big old-growth pine tree to join hands, it was “five children embracing the natural world that gives them life,” wrote his grandson, Rod Crawley. Mr. Sparks was a fervent advocate for the protection of natural areas. When logging in the Gatineau Hills was common during the Great Depression, as a leader of the Federal Woodlands Preservation League, Mr. Sparks fought for protection of key parts of the Gatineau forests. In the early 20th century, there had been talk of a federal park to protect the Gatineau Hills. Mr. Sparks, however, presented then-prime minister Mackenzie King in 1937 with a detailed plan for the creation of a park. Though Mr. Sparks and Mr. King argued on some subjects, they were on the same page about the need for a Gatineau Park. The government set aside $100,000 for the purchase of lands, and the park was created on July 1, 1938. A 1949 report by an advisory group led by Mr. Sparks said this about what the park should be: “Preserve for all time the natural beauty of the lakes and wooded hills as an inspiration to those who can enjoy them, whether residents of the surrounding district, or visitors from other parts of Canada, or from foreign lands.” Mr. Sparks died on March 29, 1959. Mr. Murray, a fierce NCC critic, yesterday heaped praise on Mr. Beaudry for his willingness to set the record straight. Mr. Murray believes much has yet to be done to make Gatineau a properly protected federal park, including stepped-up efforts to get the remaining private lands into the hands of the NCC so more private building doesn't take place. But he said recognizing the contribution of this committed conservationist is a positive turn. “By recognizing the man, by putting up his picture, I think this is a watershed in the park's history,” said Mr. Murray. Sandy Crawley, who spoke on behalf of descendants gathered yesterday, said many family members have moved far from the Gatineau Hills, but they treasure the memory of Percy Sparks and “this wonderful gift” that all Canadians may enjoy.

Thanks for posting the entire content of that article.

I stand by the Citizen not identifying the NWPL as the source of the NCC's action. Even though at one location it says that Murray caused the change, and at another says that Murray is the vice-president of the NWPL, it is synthesis to connect the two (from WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"). It is not explicitly stated by any single source that the NWPL caused the NCC to recognise Sparks. -M.Nelson (talk) 05:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MNelson: You are way off. How can you say it is synthesis, when I provided you with evidence that the Sparks Hall was dedicated as a result of NWPL efforts?

Here it is again:Notes pour une allocution de Marcel Beaudry, président de la Commission de la capitale nationale, à l’occasion de l’inauguration de la Salle Roderick Percy Sparks, Le vendredi 8 juillet 2005, Centre des visiteurs du parc de la Gatineau, 10 h 30

Marcel Beaudry speech

“I would like to take this opportunity to thank the New Woodlands Preservation League, especially Mr. Andrew MacDermott and Mr. Jean-Paul Murray, for highlighting the role of Mr. Sparks [emphasis added]during our various public meetings and our meeting with the NCC Board of Directors. As a result of their comments, we commissioned a study to examine the influence of interest groups and the socio-political context around the Park’s creation. “Mr. Murray more particularly, was involved and consulted throughout the process and as a result of the study, we are here today to recognize the important role of Roderick Percy Sparks in the establishment of this magnificent national treasure.”

Note: the professors did not conclude that Sparks had a dominant role in creating the park, since their study was terribly flawed. Mr. Beaudry saw the evidence the NWPL presented and contradicted the study to acknowledge the NWPL was right. You might read the study yourself to see I'm right, or continue making unfounded claims.

Below is Murray's critique of the professors study. His research was presented to the NCC as NWPL research. --Stoneacres (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Paul Murray: "Give Credit to Park's Founder", Ottawa Citizen

Give Credit to Park's Founder By Jean-Paul Murray, Ottawa Citizen, December 22, 2004, p. D4 Jean-Paul Murray's research on the history of Gatineau Park prompted the National Capital Commission to commission a study of the park's history. Below, Mr. Murray argues that the historians should have concluded that Percy Sparks founded the park. On Monday, the Citizen will publish excerpts from the NCC's study. The true story of Gatineau Park has long been a secret surrounded by a mystery shrouded in a myth. And the just released study into the park's origins conducted for the National Capital Commission by two Quebec university professors perpetuates the misrepresentation of that story. While the body of the document provides a fairly accurate depiction of how the park emerged, from concept to fruition, showcasing the leading role played by Percy Sparks, the study's conclusion contradicts the evidence presented and seriously distorts the picture. The professors wrap the issue in the thickest fog of sophistry and disregard the facts they present by concluding that “circumstances” and a “series of actions by various individuals” created the park, for which they say they can't “provide the date of founding and the name of the founder.” If Sparks did more than anyone else to create the park, as they demonstrate, then why can't he be considered the founder? If money for purchasing the first park land was voted in the Commons on June 29, 1938, as they say, then why can't this be considered the founding date? The claim that everyone and no one was responsible for creating the park is a cop out and betrays the professors' collectivist bias. A bias they reveal when they downplay the impact individuals can have on society, saying that “regardless of their influence, [individuals] generally hold a power which they wield collectively.” The spirit of this statement warps the study by forcing the spurious conclusion that many individuals share equal responsibility for creating the park. That several people and organizations played a role in the park's creation is a commonplace. However, assessing and comparing their contributions helps identify the key players and determine how much credit each deserves. Something the professors failed to do, preferring to lump together a variety of individuals, reports and organizations in an amorphous mass. Credit for the idea of Gatineau Park belongs to Frederick Todd, who proposed it in his 1903 plan for the national capital. The idea was advocated as well by the plans that followed it: the Holt Report in 1915, and the Cauchon Report in 1922. Although these documents recommended creating a park in the Gatineau Hills, they spoke of it only in the briefest and most general of terms. None of them provided blueprints for the park or action plans for setting it up. As well, the study wrongly credits the Ottawa Ski Club with a leading role in the park's creation. Even if the ski club was instrumental in developing skiing facilities, I've found no evidence in the club's various publications that confirms it played such a role. Instead, a passage from the January 1935 issue of the Ottawa Ski Club News suggests it was only an interested bystander: “The Ottawa Ski Club watches with keen interest the efforts made by the Federal Woodlands Preservation League to stop the wholesale cutting of trees in the Gatineau Hills.” Moreover, neither of the two histories written about the club by former presidents, C.E. Mortureux and Herbert Marshall, mentions that the Ottawa Ski Club took an active part in creating the Federal Woodlands Preservation League or in lobbying for the park. When the story of Gatineau Park's creation is stripped of its various myths, the only two men left standing are Mackenzie King, who had to have his arm twisted, and Percy Sparks, who did the twisting. According to the Ottawa Journal of April 12, 1949, King essentially “set the seal of approval on plans [...] submitted to him by far-sighted and public-spirited men of the Woodlands Preservation League.” And, as I've demonstrated elsewhere, the leading force behind the league, and Gatineau Park, was Percy Sparks, who did most of the researching, organizing, lobbying and designing that led to its creation and initial development. Finally, the study’s most serious flaw is that it has failed to address the issue of why Percy Sparks was completely omitted from all previous histories of Gatineau Park. In any event, the upshot of this story is that NCC chairman Marcel Beaudry had the wisdom and vision to see through the professors' ramblings and recognize Sparks's “significant contribution” by naming an exhibition hall after him. Although the chairman's bureaucrats still need to grasp the nature of that contribution, we commend him on his fine gesture.

As I mentionned before, the Citizen still does not identify the NWPL as the source of the NCC's action.

The NCC's chairman Beaudry does credit the NWPL as "highlighting the role of Mr. Sparks". However, the Beaudry is clear that "as a result of [the NWPL's] comments, [the study was commissioned]", and that the NCC is recognizing Sparks "as a result of the study". Though Beaudry says that "A resulted in B" and "B resulted in C", he does not say that "A resulted in C"; as such, a proper summary would be that "due to NWPL efforts, the NCC commissionned a study (later criticised by Murray) that resulted in the recognition of Sparks."

I don't think that this determines notability; the recognition of Sparks seems to be a relatively minor event (no major news coverage; Google News archive searches [22][23][24] show no items relating to this Percy Sparks, let alone his recognition), and as I explained earlier, the NWPL was not directly responsible for his recognition (the study was). -M.Nelson (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay MNelson: prepare to apologize for uttering a falsehood. You should research before talking. Read the study: and then I dare you to say that the study was responsible for the recognition of Percy Sparks.http://www.canadascapital.gc.ca/data/2/rec_docs/1663_gatineau_study_e.pdf. Do you ever read stuff before jumping to illogical, unfounded conclusions?

You did not explain that the NWPL was not directly responsible. You claimed it without any evidence or logic. The study was commissioned as a result of NWPL research and presentation to the board. The NWPL handed all its voluminous research to the NCC following its May 2003 presentation to the board. The professors took all that research, adding almost nothing that the NWPL hadn't given them, and changed the conclusion that Sparks was a significant player--being paid $23,000 for using our research. Had you read the material I sent you, instead of pushing your deletion agenda, you would have realized this.

Even the Citizen, in an editorial, recognized the NWPL work. That you can't find a good deal of news coverage on this only testifies to your limited research skills.

Your latest contribution lacks logic and credibility.

Whim and prejudice are no substitute for facts and truth... --Stoneacres (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I find it laughable that you consider my latest contribution to lack logic and credibility; since you have not done anything to disprove my points, I'll simply reword them in hopes that you'll understand what I'm getting at.

I have explained that in the Citizen item, "It is not explicitly stated by any single source that the NWPL caused the NCC to recognise Sparks." Using two separate conclusions (Murray caused the NCC to change; Murray is vice-president of NWPL) to reach a third conclusion (NWPL caused the change) is synthesis. This third conclusion is "not explicitly stated by any of the sources" (from WP:SYNTHESIS, please read!).

Beaudry's speech does not say that the NWPL was directly responsible for the recognition of Sparks; if you have read the speech, I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise. As I clearly stated before, Beaudry says that the NWPL resulted in the study's commissioning, and the study resulted in the recognition of Sparks. This is what I refer to as being 'indirectly responsible'. He did not say that the NWPL resulted in the recognition of Sparks, which would make it direct.

Even if the NWPL was directly responsible for the recognition of Sparks (as I have explained above, sources say it was not), one Citizen article is not "significant coverage" per WP:NOTABLE, and an editorial carries even less weight. From WP:RELIABLE, "An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact".

Though I am honoured to be treated to similar ad hominem attacks as Ahunt (whose editing I greatly respect), might I recommend that you refrain from such comments in the future (my "limited research skills"); they do nothing to advance the discussion, and some editors might consider you to be a bit uncivil. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.