Josh hough (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

Josh Hough is a public figure within the city of Redlands California. He has become an almost iconic role model to many of the young children and teen thhroughout the city. I believe it to be indicitave to the citizens of Redlands that you allow a page to be made on Mr. Hough. I occasionaly hear conversations on the background of Josh Hough and i think it would very beneficial to have a page on wikipedia in which many of the key event of Josh Hough's life are stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Motrcolt (talk • contribs) 01:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No there is no evidence that this person is in any way notable. The repeated recreations of the article and this deletion review strongly suggests that you are here to disrupt wikipedia. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YaBB (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Yet another Bulletin Board was started in 2000 by a 16-year old. It served as the first flat file, non-threaded, free, and open-source bulletin board / forum system ever. It was also one of the few openly developed projects by team members from around the world at the time. It is written in the Perl language and is still being developed today. Developers of YaBB have gone on to found and develop Ikonboard, Invision Power Board, E-Blah, and Simple Machines Forum. For its first couple years, it was the most used forum system out. It is referenced in several books and in many interviews of software companies and developers, many whom worked with YaBB in the past. It was essentially the grandfather of most forums out today and is still a large competitor. It has a rightful place in history due to these reasons and is well known by name in the Internet website world.

YaBB had an article on Wikipedia for many years. It was unjustifiably deleted by Wikipedia in February 2010 for incorrect facts and biased promotional opinions of the editors. The article was painstakingly recreated this week. An editor on Wikipedia essentially attacked me this week by referring me to the apparent deletion review process then removing all of my arguments, marking the article as spam, reverting hours of work I spent on updating the article for no reason, then marking it for speedy deletion. I discussed this with him and was told my arguments for keeping it were invalid. He also stated the article was promotional in nature, when in fact it was written in a very historical manner (I'm not sure how the originally deleted article was written but it was no more historical than the new). After I and others replied on the discussion page to explain why it should not be removed, all of these discussions were completely deleted. The old discussions which were on the incorrectly spelled "Yabb" page were then moved from there to the deletion discussion on the newly created "YaBB" page. I also explained to him that many other competing software such as Ikonboard, Invision Power Board, ProBoards and Simple Machines Forum also have Wikipedia articles and are much more promotional than YaBB's was. The newly created article had a long section of history, which was most of the article, links to interviews of other software founders that came from and/or referred to YaBB, links to many external reference sites, and links to books.Corey (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some example external links with information related to the article.

http://www.yabbforum.com

https://sourceforge.net/projects/yabb/

http://cgi.resourceindex.com/detail/04955.html

http://www.forum-software.org/yabb/review

http://www.theadminzone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14252

http://www.theadminzone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10949

http://articles.sitepoint.com/article/matt-mecham-ibforums

http://www.boardmod.org

http://www.yabbtoolbar.com

http://www.yabbworld.com/

http://www.yabbdirectory.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Internet_forum_software_(other)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProBoards

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Machines_Forum

http://www.facebook.com/pages/YaBB/175303075097#!/pages/YaBB/175303075097

http://www.abbreviations.com/b1.aspx?KEY=232812

http://www.amazon.com/YaBB-Lambert-M-Surhone/dp/6130401248/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1286515157&sr=8-5

http://books.google.com/books?id=8G_P6AkUT8EC&pg=PA324&dq=%22YaBB%22+-inpublisher&hl=en&ei=NEWuTL--JsufnAflh-X8BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22YaBB%22%20-inpublisher&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=WTl_7H5HUZAC&pg=PA157&dq=%22YaBB%22+-inpublisher&hl=en&ei=NEWuTL--JsufnAflh-X8BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22YaBB%22%20-inpublisher&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=FaTiGmOLVF4C&pg=PA7&dq=%22YaBB%22+-inpublisher&hl=en&ei=NEWuTL--JsufnAflh-X8BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22YaBB%22%20-inpublisher&f=false

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ic0PTG3dhc&feature=related temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review Corey (talk) 06:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)]</ref>[reply]

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Not finding much terribly convincing so far. Anything with "yabb" in the URL is going to regarded as a primary source, other wikipedia articles can't be used to establish notability, neither can fan sources (e.g. facebook). Haven't looked at all the rest yet, but the amazon link to to what appears to be the book form of a (perhaps this?) wiki article, and the first google book link just used a YaBB script as an example of an install. Tarc (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Reply - I don't know what you expect to find for a piece of software and what would convince you.... For future knowledge in how to better wite "historical" articles that are not full of what you call useless references, then please explain to me how Simple Machines Forum and all the other forum software deserve a wikipedia article and YaBB does not? I'm not saying they don't, but if that is your reason for deleting it recall: YaBB's article had much more references from other sources than the others. In fact, SMF's only has 2 links that are not links to their own website; the YaBB article only had a couple links that WERE to their own website. Seem fishy to you? Certainly makes me uncomfortable with the whole premise of Wikipedia and its apparent attempt to be a non-promotional but educational tool. I don't understand how you do not see the connection in the history section and in the links to the various interviews from other well-known software developers and their roots with YaBB. Also, the fact that it is referenced in COUNTLESS books - I only listed a few should add to that. The books I happened to list were some that discuss various software and particularly reference YaBB, its history, what it is, and in some cases how to install it. YaBB has a place in history for giving birth to the non-threaded forum world, paving the way for open source forums, and for being the proving ground for the developers and founders of countless other systems and companies. What have the others done other than writing a piece of software similarly and selling it? What do you not get? I want to prove my case to you and want to ensure that this piece of history is not lost. Please tell me what you are looking for to prove this, and I'll find it. Please also tell me what I can do to better preserve the information in an article that meets the guidelines you are trying to enforce because I cannot figure it out by reading other articles. Corey (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• See WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:INN, WP:SEWAGE etc. The fact that other articles exist which may not meet the standards in their current form is not a free pass for everything else. The expectation is that this article meets the standards. The basic inclusion criteria is notability which roughly speaking does the world at large beleive this is significant such that reliable sources will write in detail about it. The general notability guidline calls for non-trivial coverage in multiple independant reliable sources. Hence the sourcing to blogs/forums posts etc. fails the reliable sources part (I can go out and create loads of posts all over the internet about my favourite topic, it means nothing, worse still I can make crap up). Those which are the the originators, sourceforge etc. are primary sources and fail the independant part (again I can go out and write lots and lots about my product, doesn't make it interesting to the rest of the world etc.) , reliable sourcing eliminates many including those which are based on wikipedia content, wikipedia isn't a reliable source. And non-trivial coverage precludes directory entries passing mentions etc. Your statement "I want to prove my case to you and want to ensure that this piece of history is not lost." suggests to me the fundamental problem, you want wikipedia to be the source for the piece of history, something wikipedia is rather expressly not, wikipedia should never be the primary source of anything. If the history is important per notability the world at large will believe so and will have written about it, any wikipedia article has to be based on that, not the other way around. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for providing me with an educational, useful, and respectful reply, as others in these discussions and deletions have not done so to date. I understand your points and agree with most of them. Of course, I agree that links to the project's own sites do not count as sources of providing importance due to not being independent. However, being Internet software, most of the sources are going to be online references such as forums on others' sites. Interviews nowadays are often posted on forums as were the ones referenced. If you doubt their reliability, you can contact the interviewers or simply see that they are the administrators/founders of the major sites they are posted on. If it would make you feel better, I could publish them all in a printed book. And seeing as the world is now an online social media consumer, historical articles and public opinion about a topic are going to be discussed online, which in turn become the main method we can use to verify the importance (to the people) of said topic. Of course "crap" could be made up, but that is the risk we take with the Internet. I have to rely on electronic documentation at work without knowing that the work was truly done or by the person listed. One day, this may be all we have. And this still doesn't account for the physical paper books that do exist. I agree that Wikipedia cannot be assumed as 100% factual and correct. However, fact is Wikipedia is used as a research tool by teachers, students, and employees because of the way it has positioned itself. You and all the Wikipedia researchers/administrators are tasked with protecting this. Of course, sound research must be backed up by other sources. The general notability guidline also states "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." YaBB definitely had more sources to prove its notability several years ago, which is why it had a Wikipedia article for years (edited by many people) until February 2010. Suddenly deleting it is not following your own policies. That being said, if the information presented to date is not sufficient and based on your reply, the free pass you have given me is to request review for deletion of every other web software, especially forums and especially those (most) which have no external references. And no, this would not be to make a point WP:POINT, it would be to help Wikipedia's editors in keeping it the great source it's meant to be. Corey (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Other articles which don't (and can't) meet the standard can of course be nominated for deletion. Be cautious however of "Before nominating an article for deletion" and WP:POINT. Regarding the reliability of forums etc. by wikipedia standards they generally aren't, we don't need to take a risk, if a source can't be evaluated or doesn't meet the standards we don't use it. I have some sympathy on the prelevance of electrronic media perhaps not fitting the model well in establishing notability, however it's a tough nut to crack it is pretty easy to gain a very broad web presence, run astroturfing campaigns etc. This is however a far broader problem and issue than just this article and something which has been discussed on numerous occasions with no concensus to change things, it isn't within DRVs remit to just ignore and overrule the community. Regarding wikipedia "as a research tool by teachers, students, and employees because of the way it has positioned itself.", then not really again wikpedia is qutie clear it isn't a primary source on these things, it's why the insistance on verifiability, no one should be citing wikipedia as a source they should always be going to the underlying wikipedia sources. Indeed many in the academic world are critical of students etc referencing wikipedia. (See Citing_Wikipedia#A_caution_before_citing_Wikipedia) --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm struggling to figure out what sources are considered valid for making the case of Internet forum software. I can continue to quote physical paper books though. In addition to the several books with information about YaBB, there are hundreds if not thousands that have URLs to forums for sources cited in the books that are using YaBB (easily found because YaBB.pl or YaBB.cgi is in the URL). I am reviewing the WP:Reliable Sources guideline.

http://books.google.com/books?id=yYztT8dwTyoC&pg=PA433&dq=YaBB&hl=en&ei=lZivTMfXOZGlnQfggfWhBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCDgU#v=onepage&q=YaBB&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=vPP_qJeeGgsC&pg=PA538&dq=YaBB&hl=en&ei=sZivTPaTGsbcngfA56iPBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCQQ6AEwADge#v=onepage&q=YaBB&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=TzsqA_hrjTcC&pg=PA100&dq=YaBB&hl=en&ei=-JyvTM-hCsyfnAfuvsmiBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCQQ6AEwADhG#v=onepage&q=YaBB&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=KgryRaX2xzAC&pg=PA6&dq=Perl+YaBB&hl=en&ei=P6CvTOSfNIernQfDxtztBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Perl%20YaBB&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=_7jvXpB_NBMC&pg=PA135&dq=Perl+YaBB&hl=en&ei=P6CvTOSfNIernQfDxtztBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=YaBB&f=false

Corey (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Quote: "The fact that other articles exist which may not meet the standards in their current form is not a free pass for everything else. The expectation is that this article meets the standards. The basic inclusion criteria is notability which roughly speaking does the world at large beleive this is significant such that reliable sources will write in detail about it. The general notability guidline calls for non-trivial coverage in multiple independant reliable sources."

It is hard to equate an article to fit the standards by viewing other wiki articles if they might not meet the standards and are not marked for deletion.

If the qualification is notability certainly the results of Google, Ask, and other search engines should heavily influence the decision of an article about YaBB. Simply the letters YaBB deserves definition and description (history) of a freelance endeavor that still exists and flourishes 10 years after appearing on the international web. Noting past programmers, the Perl language use and even the growth of such a project still being carried forward. Usage by thousands making yabb.pl return 3,910,000 hits when a single search made should be evident that YaBB should be included in Wikipedia.

Cjohn323 (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Cjohn323[reply]

If number of google hits show it's important, again then you'd expect the world at large to have noticed (talen note, notability) and written about this. Notablity guidlines are WP:N and general notability guidlines neither mention number of google hits as indicating notability, they do mention non-trivial coverage in multiple independant reliable sources. See WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:GOOGLE (particularlty Wikipedia:GOOGLE#Notability) for more on this. Of the book extracts I've seen above they don't appear to pass the bar of non-trivial coverage, they are passing mentions or directory style listings, what is needed is coverage which addresses the subject directly and in detail. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 08:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Main categories: Technology and Applied sciences

Computing: Artificial intelligence • Classes of computers • Companies • Computer architecture • Computer model • Computer science • Computer security • Computing and society • Data • Embedded systems • Free software • Human-computer interaction • Information systems • Internet • Mobile Web • Languages • Multimedia • Networks • Industrial Networks • Operating systems • Platforms • Product lifecycle management • Programming • Real-time computing • Software • Software engineering • Unsolved problems in computer science • More...

Category:Free software This is a category of articles relating to software that meets The Free Software Definition. That is to say that users can freely use, study, copy, redistribute, modify, and publish modified versions of the software, making it "free software" or "open-source software". In practical terms, this means either software whose source code has been released into the public domain, or software which is distributed with a free software license, including, but not limited to, the list of FSF approved software licenses, and whose source code is available to anyone who receives a copy of the software.

Category:Software Category:Perl software Category:Free software programmed in Perl Category:Computing and society Category:Computer-mediated communication Pages in category "Bulletin board systems"

As a Bulletin Board software written in open-source Perl, YaBB definetly is noteable still being developed after 10 years. Bulletin boards themselves have been around before the popularity and availability of the interent. As Open-source software it is rare to not have been commericalized. As a remote communications media to bring together users around the world it is the fore runner of blogs and social networks. Notability it has in many of the Catergories. Quote: "you'd expect the world at large to have noticed" It has ! Cjohn323 (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you would actually read the guidlines notability and the general notability guidelines rather than just trying to fit anything and everything to your view point. The existance of a category for something doesn't mean anything which could fit that category is notable - neitherWP:N nor WP:GNG say that is the case. My crappy garage band is a band, and we have categories for bands, it doesn't make my crappy garage band notable. The concept of a bulletin board may indeed be notable (and indeed we have an article on the concept), but that doesn't automatically make everything which could be described as such is notable. Merely asserting "it has!" says nothing, once again the requirememt is for that to be demonstrated by it being written about in a non-trivial way by multiple independant reliable sources, not some random wikipedia editor saying "it has!". Unless you can produce those then this discussion is pointless. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Overturn Put simply, I do not see a consensus to delete in the discussion. It would help, though if someone experienced in our guidelines helped in the writing and sourcing. (My own view is that computer programs from this period are notable as long as there is evidence of sufficiently major use. We have to be realistic in terms of the possibilities for sourcing.) DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you reading the same discussion. 8 opinions, 5 opine to delete 3 to keep (one weak) the 4 of the deletes bring up the lack of suitable sources/references one is a weaker bald assertion of non-notability. The three keeps, one "weak" addresses the sourcing, the other two basically the weaker bald assertions of notability. In terms of the standards of rough consensus which are applied I can't see how a consensus wasn't reached. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  "from this period" What is so unique about ten years ago that it should be specially treated? BBS software from the era of 300 baud modems might be hard to source but 2000 web based BBS, no. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• Endorse deletion The closer's reading of consensus was correct, particularly as the first 'keep' was 'weak keep' (a very weak keep in my view) and the other two did not address policy or guideline reasons for keeping the article at all. Jon 217.43.240.23 (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse 2000 is not so long ago, it is still well within popular internet time, and obvious lasting influence of this thing should be plainly evident without going to primary sources and fan pages. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• 2000 is almost 11 years ago, which is a pretty long time, especially when you consider that the "modern" Internet did not become popular until the late 90's. This means YaBB's inception was remarkable for its time in days when telnet BBS systems still thrived and were only just dying as the primary means of remote "online" communication to be replaced by E-Mail which homes then still barely had. Also, several other sources have been cited in this discussion other than just primary sources and fan pages. Here's another to add to the list: http://www.pcw.co.uk/computeractive/features/2158240/add-forum-website . YaBB had a feature article in this British magazine and was featured in several other magazines, books, and CDs over the years. Don't try to tell me again that minor publishers don't count because this was a very popular mainstream magazine that existed for 31 years and just stopped publishing last year. If it was "not notable" why would such a large publication write an article? I can also provide you with a dozen sites with YaBB reviews on them, some of them being full product reviews by the site rather than just member-edited or user comments. Here's one of them http://www.forum-software.org/yabb/review which has several pages in the article written by an independent administrator on that site - no ties to YaBB and no request for this - done on their own. Do you honestly expect to find a web URL to all sources that you personally feel make it notable? Not everything is accessible on the Internet as much as you'd like to think - things are sometimes not posted online and things do "expire" online. Books, magazines, and newspapers still exist. People still make speeches using their mouths. There are still physical museums and memorials that you can touch. I couldn't provide you with a citing online for all of those things, so then you might say "it's a you said so then, which means it can't exist." If we had this discussion a couple years ago we could have pointed more quickly found sources out, but the fact that they are not all readily available today via the Internet does not mean it's not notable. By Wikipedia guidelines, if it was once notable, it is forever - it cannot become "unnotable". YaBB had the article for years, which means it was notable - it would not have been "missed" by all the editors for that long. Additionally, as I said, in its hayday (not that it isn't still very popular) there was more that I could readily cite on the Internet - we're having this discussion too late. You cannot ignore the independent interviews, reviews, and several book references that have been provided above, and you are. These are not "fan pages" OR "primary sources" point blank. I know of someone who is actually trying to find a copy of a magazine that has an article about YaBB in it to scan as a printed proof. You can buy the books above if you'd feel more cozy. Corey (talk) 03:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corey, the thing to do with these sources of yours is to set up a wiki over at Wikia dedicated to bulletin boards or whatever, where you can use whatever sources you like. Alternatively, build up an article on YaBB in your user space using good quality sources that talk about the subject in detail (not yabb, forums, fan sites, wikipedia, trivial mentions) and check with an experienced editor whether it meets the inclusion criteria for an article in Wikipedia before moving it into article space. As it stands, the deletion was correct. Jon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.240.23 (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I re-created the article this month, my goal was to write it in a better manner and I feel I did that. Granted, it was far from complete and lacked some sources and information, but I noted that in the article that there were things to be completed. My hope was that we would receive guidance and time for others to contribute. I can certainly write the article somewhere else, but where would I find guidelines on how to properly write the article and what would be the process for getting someone at Wikipedia.org to review it to see if it could be included here? 99.190.107.115 (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cracking the Quran Code (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Astroturfed with SPA or Close to SPA being part of a suspected Meat Puppet ring . While the usuals at AFD seem to have a consensus that it was not notable. We have the discussed it with Sandstein on her talk page and (s)he has stood by it. IT seems consensus was with the a delete I request it be relisted to gain wiser conensus by established users The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As closing admin, I refer the participants to this discussion to my comments on my talk page (permalink). In addition, I note that I have closed this discussion on the merits of the arguments being presented, not on the merits of those who presented them: there was insufficient discussion of the sources that were advanced to support the notability of this book, so I could not find a "delete" consensus.  Sandstein  19:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• While I am aware that DRV is not AFD Part Deux, as nominator of the original AFD and upon reviewing the article once more, I believe that the "no consensus" closure should be changed to "delete" and we should be gone with this article, rather than going through another week of AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Ryulong. One of the "keep" voters also made a ridiculous personal attack against me due to the fact that I voted Delete. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really. That user was just suggesting that you were personal when you championed to delete Nazism in Arab PalestineSalamaat (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quit trying to rewrite the past. As far as Nazism in Arab Palestine goes, that article was deleted by community consensus. You can try listing it on DelRev if you want, but be warned that the chances of it being restored are around 0.01%. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and Delete Umm... Sandstein? Really? Blatantly clear that at least two of the people (Dallas hero1989 and Salamaat) who voted for keep are meatpuppets. Ret.Prof is a POV pusher, also not a good thing to listen to. Get rid of the article. It is shameful too. As someone who follows the conflict closely, (and firmly blames the British for at least the beginning of the Israel-Palestine conflict) I am especially upset, as these types of WP:COATRACK crackpot books and the shameful behavior of the meaties Dallas hero1989 and Salamaat are hurting, rather than helping, coverage and hopeful resolution of a key issue in world politics. For the record, I am pro-Israel, so my delete vote has nothing to do with the conflict and everything to do with the book and/or the Wikipedia article being a total joke. Sven Manguard _Talk 00:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• AfD comments are not votes, and whether these "keep" opinions are by meatpuppets is irrelevant, because I am discounting them anyway, as well as your own "delete" opinion: the only opinions that matter are those that address the number and quality of sources covering this book. And these opinions are basically only those of Vejvančický (keep) and Bali ultimate (delete), possibly also those of Ryulong (delete) and RS101 (keep). These four divided opinions do not constitute a consensus for deletion.  Sandstein  07:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. I am well aware of the fact that they are not votes, but for lack of a better word, I use vote for deletes and keeps. I use it solely as a colloquialism.

2. AfD is about more than sources. Articles that do not meet other requirements, or violate the what Wikipedia is not are also fair game for delete votes suggestions. In this case it is a non notable fringe theory used for POV pushing, in other words, a violation of WP:SOAP. If there is any legitimate content of encyclopedic value in the book, it certainly isn't covered in the article at the time of my statement.

3.Furthermore, as this has slipped under the radar of the vast majority of legitimate reviewers of books, it is not notable. There are two sources. One is a tabloid, which in reading the introduction, makes it clear that it is a POV rich and otherwise unreliable source. One legitimate source is not notable. Not for a book, not for anything. If I were not involved and I saw a tabloid as a source for just about anything, I'd remove it. So there, a source related reason. One source, plus a crappy tabeloid that should be removed. Better?

Sven Manguard _Talk 22:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be a valid opinion in an AfD. It is not relevant in a DRV, though, since the point of a DRV is to determine whether a discussion was correctly closed on the basis of the opinions that were expressed in the AfD. In other words, DRVs are a purely procedural exercise. If you want to make a case for deletion on the basis of the merits of the article's sources, the place do so would be a new AfD, not this DRV.  Sandstein  14:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I stay with my comments from the AfD discussion. We have two non-trivial independent sources (Ok, there could be a connection between Arutz Sheva and Weekly Blitz, but I'm unaware of that). The main problem of the article is that both sources represent the same point of view, moreover in a very sensitive area. The sources are in English, and the first one states that "some Muslims have given rave reviews of the book". Did we try to find reviews and another coverage in Arabic or Hebrew (the relevant language areas)? Unfortunately it is impossible for me, as I don't speak or read any of the languages. I am not pro-Israel, I am not pro-Palestinian, and I do not follow the conflict closely. All I demand is careful research before we delete (?) this information. I've rewritten the article to reflect the sources available.--Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 03:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as within admin discretion. In my opinion this is a close call and deletion may have been justified from the discussion, however there were enough keep votes, one of whom, User:Vejvančický, listed new sources, that a non consensus close was justified. I note that a 'no consensus' vote does not stop a reasonably quick relisting if anyone wishes to discuss Vejvančický's arguments more. Dpmuk (talk) 10:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Hmm. Either delete or no consensus would probably have been within discretion here. The SPI seems to have turned up nothing to date, and if those arguments were ignored as not being based in policy anyway then I don't see that anything's really changed to justify overturning. The article as it stands is about as unbiased as it could be and is properly sourced, so there isn't any overriding policy need to delete this. Renomination in a month or so might be a good idea though. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, which I rarely do, and delete. There is no way in hell those SPAs should have been counted at all, reducing the keeps to a handful, and a thin one at that. Tarc (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Dpmuk, the delete-pushers meatpuppets: Stonemason89 & ResidentAnthropologist are weak and failed to make a case. SorrySalamaat (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, where is your proof that either of us are "meatpuppets"? Both of us are established editors; ResidentAnthropologist especially (he previously made many contributions under a different username, but was forced to switch to his current account after his old one was hacked by a JIDF troll who was trying to discredit him). You're the meatpuppet, not us. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of meatpuppets:

Official Edit counts from the X! counter, retrieved around 23:00 UTC (19:00 EST)

ResidentAnthropologist - First edit: Sep 17, 2010 13:08:08, Live edits: 1,003, Unique pages edited: 372, reviewer, rollbacker

Stonemason89 - First edit: Jul 03, 2006 01:47:33, Live edits: 5,411, Unique pages edited: 1,585, reviewer

Salamaat - First edit: Apr 25, 2010 17:12:00, Live edits: 58, Unique pages edited: 28, no additional privileges

Dallas hero1989 - First edit: Sep 26, 2010 01:20:08, Live edits: 13, Unique pages edited: 10, no additional privileges.

Sven Manguard - First edit: Sep 19, 2010 00:35:43, Live edits: 1,264, Unique pages edited: 908, no additional privileges

(mine is for full disclosure, not accused of being a meat by either party)

Cheers. Dallas hero1989 is the only blatant meat IMO, (although Salamaat isn't that far off. Only four edits in April, the rest are very recent.) Sven Manguard _Talk 23:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse If the sources in the article are reliable, the book is notable. Arguments about the sources were about its biases, which aren't generally a good reason to discount the sources for purposes of notability (otherwise we might never count Fox News or the like). That said, the reliability of the sources isn't clear to me. One is apparently the 4th most popular paper in Israel which probably doesn't mean much, but does mean something. I think the other (Weekly Blitz) might be a SPS, but I can't tell either from this AfD or the article's source. Looks like there is a valid argument that it meets WP:N and so a NC or keep result is possible and the discussion isn't so strongly delete leaning to get past that. I really can't see a strong case for deleting a book that meets GNG no matter how crackpot-ish it might be. Hobit (talk) 23:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete. The book is not remotely notable, and the sources are inadequate. 2 RS = N is an extremely weak criterion for a notable non-fiction book, and its time we realised this. In practice, we often do: we almost never keep books where that is the most that can be said without some sort of supporting evidence of other factors in notability. Anyway, this is, at best, 1.5 notable sources, and it was wrong to accept this as sufficient RSs. Personally, I tend to assume that all !votes on topics pertaining to Palestine and Israel are likely to be ideologically motivated, and there is not one single person here or elsewhere in the world who cares about the issues that is actually neutral. I don't know how an admin can do right in articles in this area except in the most extreme cases of suitability or unsuitability, and I therefore do not fault Sandstone for using non-consensus. But he should have realised this was one of the extreme cases of non-notability. I know of no solution, except a general decision that in this entire area all the rules will be applied either with particular restrictiveness or that they will be applied with particular laxity, applying to both sides on a consistent basis. But in practice, I'm not sure I would have appealed this--it rarely makes sense for those wanting deletion to appeal a non-consensus. It's much easier to just wait a month and afd2 DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Several editors sought to have the article kept on the basis that one of the subjects of the book is notable, implying that the book is therefore notable. That really makes no sense. The two sources presented for the book do not seem to meet the criteria for reliable sources. Oore (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The book could be mentioned in the article Abdul Hadi Palazzi, the context is apparent in the references. However, I'm not sure whether the target page is suitable enough for a redirect. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn there quite simply isn't in-depth, independent coverage of this unknown book. It makes a fringe case, and has only been taken note of by websites that favor the general point of view of the author.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the two sources are actual newspapers, is that mistaken? This doesn't appear to be a case of SPSs, merely sources that tend to agree with material in the book. I don't think that's a reason to delete, though perhaps it should be. Would we then not count Glen Beck's show as a RS for similar situations? I might be okay with that, but it seems a pretty slippery slope. Where is the line drawn? Hobit (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • upon investigation it does appear WeeklyBlitz.net have an editorial board so it probably meets a RS, however two sources are pretty slim for a book. The Book is also Self published by LULU.com. If these are the only two sources combined with being SP Book. I am not convinced of notability. If a journal had book review on it I would support and considering all the journals out there that cater to these Extreme or unusual religious topics that this was has failed to be noticed is significant. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No the weekly blitz isn't a reliable source. It's run by a guy who describes himself as a "Muslim Zionist." According to the lede of wikipedia's Muslim Zionism article (not that i would use wikipedia as a source for most things, but it confirms my research) its editor Salah Choudury is one of the three leading proponents of Muslim Zionism. Nothing wrong with that, but he has a rather idiosyncratic point of view and a version of the truth to push. Arutz Sheva (aka Israel National News) is an organ of the settler movement. Neither has an editorial board striving for accurate reflections of reality, but rather an intent to push their versions of reliality, like a lot of folks.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think WP:RS excludes those sources with idiosyncratic points of view, nor should it in my opinion. Hobit (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, you're wrong. From WP:RS: Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Both these websites have a terrible reputation for checking the facts, a rather large number of people view Arutz Sheeva as expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist (this is not the case for Choudury's self-published website weeklyblitz, because few have heard of it outside those intensely interested in loving him/hating him), and are both "promotional in nature." They are propaganda outlets. Accept that fact or not.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Interesting, I've always thought of questionable sources as being acceptable for WP:N for things like books. The question is if the book is notable. Given it's had coverage I'd say yes, but I can see how you could get a no out of it. Thanks for pointing that out. Hobit (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • hmm I though it was Blog site thus i looked for editorial board. I completly agree if only fringe website and one somewhat RS notice it then i doubt it is notable. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I think Oore and Bali ultimate have made excellent points. There is no evidence of this book having a notable presence/recognition in the field of Israel-Palestine books. The publisher not a neutral or mainstream company. Any facts, details from this book - especially the verses that are the basis of the claims made in this book - can be incorporated in Muslim Zionism, Biblical narratives and the Qur'an, Islam and Judaism and this book used as a source. But not a separate article for the book. Shiva (Visnu) 13:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete I agree that the fact that this book is self-published through LULU.com, and has received very little coverage in mainstream news sources, means that it is not notable, just like this book was found to be non-notable. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn discussion clearly poisoned by meatpuppetry, and Sandstein should have known better than to close it as they did. Also per Stonemason89, topic is simply non-notable, as self-published/vanity-press books virtually always are. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled 2011 AMC television series (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

AFD was closed as Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. However, it would seem that the sources in the article were indeed sufficient for an article despite the lack of a working title; furthermore, the pilot has been approved. Another user asked on my talk page if I would reconsider, and I didn't notice his post so I didn't have time to do so. I think that the Collider.com source I provided makes a good argument for this being undeleted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this a first? TenPoundHammer arguing that TenPoundHammer's application of TenPoundHammer's Law was wrong. ☺

  I agree that although the closure reflected the consensus, the consensus was apparently wrong, with (by the rationales) only Borock looking at whether the various WP:CRYPTICs truly applied to the case at hand. (A quick search for sources turns up other sources additional to the ones cited.) It's a shame that the discussion effectively lasted only ten hours and the article's creator didn't manage to bring this counterargument to the attention of anyone. At minimum, the AFD discussion should be revisited by its participants in light of this information. Uncle G (talk) 11:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Nguyen (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Nguyen Please review and add this article back. I've supplied links to support the notability of this person.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/multiculturalism/paulyuzyk/recipients_2010.asp

http://www.toronto.ca/civicawards/2009winners.htm#hubbard

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/lostinthestruggle/filmmaker.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1k8YfKHV_sI

http://www.blogto.com/people/2009/06/toronto_through_the_eyes_of_paul_nguyen/

http://www.innoversity.com/roadmap/speakers/pauln/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Directorpaul (talk • contribs) 04:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Restored temporarily for discussion here' DGG ( talk ) 13:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Restore; AfD optional The first three references given seem to show notability (the third was available for the earlier article also) . It might not be enough by itself, but it was not even commented on at the AfD there. In connection with the two awards, it might possibly shown notability.( The youtube and blog references are of course totally irrelevant to notability , and the university one is just a blurb). DGG ( talk ) 13:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and send to AfD. The first three links look fairly good, although the last three are pathetic. Different enough not to be G4'd and with enough sources not to be A7'd; this is probably worth another chance. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional reputable media links:

http://www.rcinet.ca/english/column/the-link-s-top-stories/multiculturalism-award-winner/

http://www.cbc.ca/metromorning/2010/01/unsolved-murder-rate-runs-843.html

http://www.cbc.ca/metromorning/2010/10/mayoral-candidates-debate.html

http://www.torontolife.com/daily/informer/2010/08/06/torontos-six-most-memorable-neighbourhood-naming-smackdowns/

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/563486

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a1IEqBz.chR0&refer=canada

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/story.html?id=2e9fa45a-99b9-4918-a372-0ec3234e4e9a&k=52736

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/228975

http://www.rrj.ca/m4093/

http://www.simcoe.com/article/48650

http://www.iansa.org/regions/namerica/documents/guns-crime-Can-ccjAug09.pdf

http://www.mfa.gov.ua/canada/en/news/detail/41780.htm

Directorpaul (talk) 23:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Directorpaul (talk • contribs) 23:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore. More than enough new sources that this would be in no way eligible for a G4 and would also be enough to pass A7. (As an aside I thought that protection was only meant to be applied for the minimal amount of time to stop the problem and if that had happened here, rather than being immediately indefinitely protected we wouldn't even be here as this could have been recreated with the new sources and shouldn't have been G4'd). Dpmuk (talk) 10:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archived TV news interviews of Paul Nguyen:

Global National: http://jane-finch.com/videos/global_internetneighbourhood.htm

CityTV Toronto: http://jane-finch.com/videos/citypulse_makingadifference.htm

G4 Tech TV segment: http://jane-finch.com/videos/g4tv.htm

Daytime Toronto: http://jane-finch.com/videos/daytime.htm

Directorpaul (talk) 06:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]