< 2010 April 26
Deletion review archives: 2010 April
2010 April 28 >

27 April 2010

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Joel Weiner (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Joel Weiner's page was deleted on the grounds of lack of notability and I wish to appeal. I contacted the admin who deleted and they said I should appeal here.

I've collected some links of independent sources on Joel Weiner.

There have also been many printed newspapers featuring articles on him; here is one I found that you can view online (page 2).

The above list included six national newspapers.

Rejection of WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E: At the time of the deletion, there were two events, one in October last year and one in April this month. Since the deletion, he has appeared in relation to other events such as http://www.thejc.com/community/community-life/30824/tv-star-joel-weiner-joins-big-bnei-akiva-event and most notably was asked by The Jewish Chronicle to put a question to each of his local MPs which was in print, but I have found to be online at http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/30843/leaders-debate-jewish-boy-puts-more-questions-leaders

WP:BASIC is met by multiple independent sources, as noted above. WP:ENT clause 2 incidentally is also met; he has a fan base on facebook exceeding 15,000 people: http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Jewish-Kid-From-The-First-Election-Debate/110963155604635

For these reasons, I believe there should be an article. Thank you. 930913/A930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 23:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC) — A930913 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Endorse, transient notability and trivial coverage only. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, the coverage is more of the event itself rather than on the child. WP:BLP1E is pretty clear that "if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" then they do not meet the criteria of being article-worthy. Any lasting coverage of this kid is still going to be tied to this single (asking the same thing a year ago doesn't quite cut it btw, the mention of that is happening only because of the current one). The other aspect of 1E that can justify an article is the "significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources" bit. This was one political debate, and hardly one of lasting historical significance. There is no administrator fault that needs to be corrected here (that is what DRV is for, it isn't AfD Chapter Two). Tarc (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Black Kite correctly determined the consensus, but, it was a very stupid consensus. Joel Wiener is now a redlink that encourages inexperienced users to write a new article, and we do need to fix that. No blame attaches to Black Kite, but I think we must overturn the consensus itself to a redirect to Question Time British National Party controversy.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what create-protection is for. The subject is non-notable. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 19:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salting's for pages subject to repeated recreation against consensus. You know as well as I do that it's not an appropriate pre-emptive measure. Redirection's to take people from a search term to the place where they can find information, and has the helpful side-effect of stopping people from creating multiple articles on very similar subjects. It can be used pre-emptively.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "You know as well as I do that it's not an appropriate pre-emptive measure." I genuinely fail to see any distinction between the use of salting as a pre-emptive measure and the use of redirection as a pre-emptive measure, except that the latter suggests that the subject is slightly notable. (I also have no problem with simply having an unprotected red link, at least until we get enough trouble to "justify" create-protection.) ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 19:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? I don't think a redirect implies notability at all. It all seems quite uncontroversial to me. But I might be out on a limb here, let's see what others think.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion fully—obviously his question got reported on, but as we've said all along, he was never really a notable subject in his own right. This is not a good use of the Deletion Review process, and I would note that A930... is a single-purpose account who most likely has a conflict of interest. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 18:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, no need for a redirect. In about six days nobody will even remember the guy existed. Guy (Help!) 07:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Compelling reasoning to delete under WP:BLP1E was offered in the debate, and a near-unanimous consensus to delete developed as a result. Black Kite's early closure was valid in my view. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If 1 kilowarhol doesn't make someone notable, what does? --930913/A930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 06:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC) — A930913 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Adherence to our notability policy. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 08:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
TeraByte Unlimited (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

TeraByte Unlimited has high notoriety and meets notability requirements. The article is informative and fact based. Even though this company doesn't do much advertising, its products and the company itself has been covered by most major computer publications over the past decade as well as respected online resources by MVP's and others. The company and their products have also been recommended by Dell tech support staff (call up the IT/business division support and ask about resizing the server drives), Microsoft (microsoft link from technet for MSSCT http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=46756), and others. Their products are used by different divisions and test labs (including ibm prefab labs) of the largest computer related manufacturers from Japan to the USA. The company and their products have been mentioned in book publications, some of which can be found via http://books.google.com/books?as_brr=0&as_pub=-icon&q=%22TeraByte+Unlimited%22. The BING trademark issues was nothing but a blip for this company (they barley mention anything about it) and has been resolved (http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/index.cfm?sid=331907&sc=101). It seems the main person responsible for deletion request either has a motive or only consider company's that issue a large number of advertising press releases as being notable. Dfatwp (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Those appear to passing references. I don't see anything in-depth that would support an article about the company, per WP:CORP. Pcap ping 17:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The company entry supports the products all of which have a high notoriety and the techonolgy overall they created. The question is who is this company that is so highly recommended by so many of the top PC industry leaders and that is the answer.
    • A better question posed by the WP:GNG is, if this company is so important to the world at large, where is that evidenced by the world wanting to write about them in a non-trivial way in mulitple independant reliable sources? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • see note added below.
  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I don't really understand how this all works. But in general a company is attached to the products it creates. For most it's the products and not the company that matter and having short concise information on the company of notable products makes logical since and keeps things more organized. There aren't many product related companies that stand on their own without products including publicly traded companies in NDX/OEX/etc..
      • Notability isn't inherited. Having short concise info on the company might make sense if you were trying to create a directory of software and producers, however this is an encyclopedia project. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Redirecting was a valid interpetation of the discussion on the closing admin's part. While my commentary in the below DRV entry for BootIt Next Generation applies here as well, in this case I would caution Dfatwp that he has not really demonstrated stand-alone notability under the general notability guideline for TeraByte Unlimited. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
BootIt Next Generation (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This product has high notoriety and meets notability requirements. The article is very informative, interesting, and fact based. Even though this company doesn't do much advertising, its products and the company itself has been covered by most major computer publications over the past decade as well as respected online resources by MVP's and others. Here are some references:

- *Partition & Boot Managers - CPU Magazine Review Article - *BootIt NG Recommendation On LangaList - *Jason's ToolBox Review of BootIt NG - *Converting FAT32 to NTFS at Aumha.org The BING trademark issues was nothing but a blip for this company (they barley mention anything about it) and has been resolved (http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/index.cfm?sid=331907&sc=101). It seems the main person responsible for deletion request either has a motive or only consider company's that issue a large number of advertising press releases as being notable. Dfatwp (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • With the exception of Computer Power User, I'm not sure what makes the other sources reliable. I cannot access the CPU article (registration/paywall), so I can't say anything about its coverage of BootIt NG. Pcap ping 17:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can people please sign their posts? Stifle (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Redirecting was a valid interpetation of the discussion on the closing admin's part. However, any editor is capable of undoing the redirection and adding better sourcing to the article. If other editors object to such actions being taken, discussion can occur on the talk page. That's probably the best course for Dfatwp to take in this case. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirection of BING has nothing to do with the notable product BootIt Next Generation. I've already listed several articles and references to computer media resources of substance where the product is recommended over all other products in the same categories from industry experts and leaders (including editors choice at CPU magazine). In addition, the BING article gave a history that shows where technology originated and how it came about. If you can get a court order to get access to Intel and Microsoft emails and communications you can then have your reference of the EFI and GPT concepts coming from the EMBR spec and Intel's going to and working with MS on the GPT with EMBR reference in hand. But review of the EMBR spec will clearly show by applying common sense that the concepts are the same. System level drivers, larger partition table, etc.. Dfatwp (talk) 02:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, notability is not inherited. Stifle (talk) 09:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Image for Windows (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This product has notoriety and meets notability requirements. The article is informative and fact based. Even though this company doesn't do much advertising, its products and the company itself has been covered by most major computer publications over the past decade as well as respected online resources by MVP's and others. The product won bronze in the 2008 community choice awards for Windows IT Pro magazine and one of the top three recommended disk imaging packages. (This link no longer works but that's where it should be http://windowsitpro.com/awards/CommunityChoiceWinners2008.html). Here are some additional references:

Since its release in 2002, the product has always had the ability to image windows systems reliable while in use even before other companies like powerquest or symantec had the technology (or even where MS then copied the technology). It's always important to know who actually creates the technologies. In addtion, that technology was licensed by certain parties to provide the technology in its core products. One of which is LANDesk *LANDesk Support Tools List at Creighton University. In addition, searching google for "Image for Windows" yields a couple hundred thousand references (probably not all there b where 99.99% are related to TeraByte Unlimited and not scion which product name appears to be image and always includes scion and even on the scion website you can't find reference to it as being a product, see http://www.scioncorp.com/pages/product_prices.htm and is no way scion more notable than TeraByte Unlimited. It seems the main person responsible for deletion request either has a motive or only consider company's that issue a large number of advertising press releases as being notable. It should also be noted that the top ten reviews site that is mentioned is nothing more than an affiliate marketing site, typically providing incorrect information on the imaging products, and higher price and percentage of payment makes a difference so using that for any type of references would be bad (half the products there no one even considers to be a player). Dfatwp (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn for this one. This was part of a rather confusing group nomination. Practically nobody explicitly supported the deletion of this one in the AfD. This particular product appeared marginally notable to me shortly after my nomination; I added a couple of refs and stuck it from the nom. Here's another review in a comparison article at [1] Computerworld. The dab page should be kept though, and the history moved to a Image for Windows (disk imaging), or similar, to distinguish it from Scion's product with the same name, which has considerably more google books ([2] vs [3]) and scholar hits [4]. Pcap ping 16:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I'm not sure of the other two, but this one seems to have sufficient sourcing. I think it is inherently confusing to do a goup nomination unless it is immediately obvious that the different articles have the same degree of notability , sourcing, and other relevant characteristics. Otherwise we run too great a risk of keeping some junk, or deleting something that isn't. The AfD guidelines need some revisions to give proper cautions about this. DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Overturn as there was little explicit support for deleting this content, and the subject appears to be notable under our guidelines. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
More