Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Thierry Jamin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Seems to me like an autobiography, but beyond that, it looks like one of those WP:BOMBARD situations where possibly unreliable sources are mixed with reliable ones. Also a lot of what looks like fringe stuff (not passing judgement, just looks like it) and controversies, etc. We've had a few "intrepid adventurer looking for the Inca ruins" bios which have been deleted based on the lack of tangible notability, not sure if this falls into the same category. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Normally, I'd tag this article for speedy deletion right here and now, as it doesn't cite any third-party sources and doesn't indicate why it is notable, but it has been tagged for cleanup, not speedy deletion by another user. It was previously tagged for speedy deletion, then apparently re-created by the same author. Should it be deleted anyway? And, if so, should it be blocked from creation? --Mathnerd 101 (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Fails notability. The entire article reads like an advertisement / self-promotion. Recommend deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.15.156 (talk) 03:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

DigiSoft Technologies, Adoni, Kurnool Dist, Andhrapradesh.

DigiSoft Technologies dealing with film colorization, restoration, 2d-3d conversion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adoniboys (talk • contribs) 05:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I added some redlinks to former Virginia Towns. Sense I added so meny of them I thought it best to bring it here to make sure they were notable, but my understanding is that any old American town is notable. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:NGEO, almost any named geographical feature or location (inhabited or not) merits inclusion. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

JADE was a software framework which was originally developed by PNB (Permodalan Nasional Berhad) in 1989 to accelerate the development of transaction-based applications. The core focus was on ease of customisation and robustness.

The original design used a client-server model, with the client being an MS-DOS based PC, and the server being an IBM CICS host.

Subsequent to the formation of HeiTech Padu, JADE is now being updated to provide web-browser support, with the same focus on ease of customisation and robustness to meet enterprise-level transaction processing needs. JADE2 - Java Accelerated Development Environment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibmohd (talk • contribs) 08:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

This article SCREAMS of non-notability. Taking a look at the references, only two good secondary sources can be found, and they're being used to support plot summary. It's written in an in-universe style, and contains so much indiscriminate detail that it can only be described as fancruft. Its previous deletion discussion resulted in a keep, but the basis of that keep seems tenuous at best-- the main arguments for keeping were presence of similar Gundam lists-- and the delete arguments seemed to have Wikipedia policy on their side, noting that the article failed on N, WAF, and FICT. I'm not willing to open a new AfD, since I'm not sure of how this issue currently stands. Can someone help out here? Ronjoe223 (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Fancruft" isn't part of any official policy. Notability of fictional places/characters/items/etc. is considered on a case-by-case basis, if you think it isn't notable enough to warrant an article you're free to nominate it for deletion. --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

looking for an opinion on the notablity of sports fan clubs? Eurolanche is a small fan club of ice hockey's Colorado Avalanche. Seems to me to fail WP:GNG in lacking independent sources and dabbles in self promotion. Not invested either way just like to know if considered relevant or to be nominated for deletion? Thanks for any clarification Triggerbit (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I've listed it at articles for deletion. SmartSE (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Diana-Dora Carbuneanu is a romanian volleyball player.She's born in 1995 and she's one of the best player in Romania. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toglegash (talk • contribs) 08:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like to write an article about Kimono Jacks. This is a new movement, started in 2010, where people gather together to wear kimono. It started in Kyoto, Japan. There are now 17 groups meeting regularly in Japan, and the movement has also spread overseas. There are now Kimono Jacks in the UK, Spain, France, Netherlands, Poland, Indonesia, Australia and about 6 groups in the US. I have written the article, but as this is a new movement, I am the only person who has written about it, (in my unpublished PhD thesis. So I cannot put references in it, but it is possible to put photographs and web links to the various groups. Can this be a wiki article? It is a wiki article on the Japanese site, but not on the English site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Kimono (talk • contribs) 07:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Probably not ... If you are the only person to write about this movement, it probably will not be considered notable enough for inclusion (yet). See if you can interest newspapers and magazines and get them to write articles about your group. Then you can use those articles to establish notability. Blueboar (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey all

We have a village in Manipur . I want to write about this village and add some pictures . I need your help. How do I go about it?

Thanks in advance .

Donny — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnybailong (talk • contribs) 05:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

See WP:Writing your first article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether the Huang Nubo article is notable, but it smacks of self-promotion and indiscriminate publicity. Keahapana (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks to Qworty for removing all the unsourced dreck. Keahapana (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I've been finding secondary sources about this open source library software package to prove that it meets WP:PRODUCT. I think I succeeded, and I think the software certainly meets the notability standards in the essay Wikipedia:Notability (software) (discussed in reliable sources as significant, is a subject of instruction at a post-graduate school, is the subject of third-party instructional materials). I did want to get a second opinion before removing the {{Notability|Products}} template, though. What do you all think?

--Sandbergja (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:BIO, in the section on invalid criteria for notability, states, That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A). However, person A may be included in the related article on B.

However, many historical articles are about people whose only notability is their relationship to a notable individual, such as Shakespeare. Articles that I think would fall under that category include probably about half of the bios in Category:Shakespeare family, such as Edmund Shakespeare and Gilbert Shakespeare, other articles related to Shakespeare such as John Ward (vicar), about half of the bios of aristocrats and their wives (the category I'm thinking about it is Category:De Vere family, but I'm sure many others have the same status.)

I can see how some of those articles could be subsumed into the main article, such as Margery Golding being merged into John de Vere, 16th Earl of Oxford, but it would seem to be logistically impossible to merge others into the article of the notable person. What it the criteria by which the rule should be enforced, if at all? This came up as a result of this discussion. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it's best to let sources make that decision for us. It's not appropriate for en.wikipedia editors to say "B is notable, and A is closely connected to B, so let's have an article on A". However, if reliable sources have provided substantial coverage of A because of the close relationship to B, that's a different matter. Willow Smith might only be famous because of her parents, but if a wide range of sources have written substantial stuff about her, that's all we need; she passes the notability guideline in her own right. bobrayner (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Thanks. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It's simply a matter of coverage. Adolf Hitler's mother, father, brother, niece, mistress, first girlfriend and dog all have their own article, despite that fact that they achieved nothing notable other than being connected to him. Even his brother's wife gets one. As far as I know, all that matters is that sufficient literature exists about them. When you achieve superstar status, for good or ill, like Hitler and Shakespeare, a lot of literature on your family comes along. Hence Hamnet, Shakespeare's son who died at 11 and about whom nothing is known beyond the fact of his existence, gets an article. Paul B (talk) 09:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I would like to create an article dealing with an online marketing company DeusM, a division of UBM plc. An article I previously created on the same topic was deleted [] because it did "not indicate the importance or significance of the subject." References I previously used were to trade journals. Based on a discussion at WP:RSN relating to a different article, I had thought these were sufficient. I now have additional references, and would welcome an opinion re notability before I re-create the article.

Old references:

• Steve Smith, "UBM Launches b2b ‘Marketing-as-a-Service’ DeusM", Min Online, Friday, October 15, 2010
• Matthew Schwartz, "UBM launches DeusM to help b-to-b publishers create online communities" B2B Media Business October 14, 2010
• Matt Kinsman, "UBM Launches New Marketing Services Unit", Folio November 1, 2001
• Alex Palmer, "UBM launches targeted social media company DeusM", Direct Marketing News, October 14, 2010

New references:

• Robert Cookson, "UBM's cautious forecast spooks investors" Financial Times, March 1, 2013.
• Charlotte Woolard, "NXP online community engages engineers" BTOB Online November 20, 2012
• Charlotte Woolard, "DeusM's Future Cities Community Spans UBM Markets" BTOB Online November 2, 2012
• Unsigned, "DeusM Launches the IT Services Site" TMCnet, November 10, 2011

Not all the sources are of equal quality, but they are all independent. I think Folio is an authoritative source for the publishing industry. Direct Marketing News is owned by Haymarket Media Group. BTOB Online is part of Crain Communications. Please let me know if more information is needed.WebHorizon (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)WebHorizon

Anyone have an opinion?WebHorizon (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)WebHorizon

I wonder if this event is notable. Here's one from CBS News right now. --George Ho (talk) 05:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Would welcome others to review the notability of this entry. WP:BAND — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPTurner (talk • contribs) 14:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Added a relink to Cherry ice cream, just wanted to conform that it was notable. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Ice cream is certainly notable... don't think individual flavors should be considered notable on their own. Blueboar (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

It could be argued that Cherry Garcia is near the GNG benchmark. But otherwise... no, creating articles on individual flavours of icecream is unlikely to help. bobrayner (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

We could probably sustain an actual list at List of ice cream flavours (which currently redirects to Category:Flavors of ice cream), with things like Cherry ice cream redirecting to the list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Alas, I may have to disagree with you. I fear it would turn out to be one of those unmanageable lists: Even if we succeed in getting a source for each flavour we then have endless hair-splitting over what counts as a distinct flavour, how to organise them, (do we need a secondary bulletpoint for cherry-and-toffee flavour? If so, do we put it under cherry or under toffee?) ... the kind of list that consumes lots of editor hours but produces little benefit for readers. bobrayner (talk) 01:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... Given what we have been saying... we should probably take a second look at the articles in Category:Flavors of ice cream. I think some of them may need to be merged or deleted. Blueboar (talk) 02:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• The correct answer is this: it all comes down to sources. If you've got two or better yet three independently published sources dealing with cherry ice cream as the topic of the piece, the subject is in the clear notability-wise. I wouldn't start a piece on this with less, because it's not apt to get the benefit of the doubt if such sources aren't showing in the footnotes. This principle is true for everything, by the way — find the multiple published sources first, then write on the topic, don't go at it the other way around. Carrite (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Adam Lanza, the shooter in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, is listed on the Newtown, CT wiki page as a notable person.

I don't believe that this is accurate. According to wiki guidelines, perpetrators of crimes or suspects are not generally considered notable, and information on them should be incorporated into the article about the event itself (as is currently done with Adam Lanza) unless the information is so long that it needs to be split off into another article (such as the VT shooter). Such individuals do not satisfy the wiki requirements for notability.

I've tried editing this in the article but my good faith edit was reverted and I was told it was disruptive and threatened with a ban. I'd like some more community input on the subject. I'm trying to faithfully interpret the official wiki guidelines on notability.71.88.34.212 (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Those guidelines are regarding whether an individual merits their own article. The guidelines for inclusion in "notable alumni/residents" etc. is less stringent. For instance, you'll find many examples of members of bands listed in those sections; the individual band members don't have their own article (and usually wouldn't merit one), but the band easily meets notability guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I would argue here that the inclusion of the perpetrator's name anywhere in that article is not inappropriate but unnecessary, since there is already a section dedicated to the attack in the page, and his name redirects to the main article on the topic anyway. I see no reason to include it, much less in a context that implies notability, even if it's just a list. My $0.02 §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

According to the list inclusion guidelines, "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers. Many of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgment." -Source, Wikipedia Manual of Style

Alternately, if you look at the wiki guide on notability for lists of people within an article, it says " Inclusion in lists contained within articles should be determined by WP:Source list, in that the entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines" I don't think that his name merits inclusion in the article. Instead, the article should mention the shooting and redirect to a separate article describing the event and the identity and role of the perpetrator in one section. I do not think his name meets the criteria for inclusion in an article about Newtown itself, but rather belongs in a separate article about the single event. An isolated criminal event is not sufficient for notability in an article about the town in genergal, although the event should be mentioned and the perpetrator and his role described in a separate article. 71.88.34.212 (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The actual guideline is in Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Lists of people which says, in effect, that if an individual is sufficiently important that s/he could be mentioned in the text in the body of an article, then s/he is sufficiently important to be mentioned in a list of notable people in that article (provided, of course, that his importance is verifiable, but there's no possibility of an issue about that in this case). Under that standard the only way Lanza should be omitted from this list is if he shouldn't be mentioned in this article at all, and that's clearly not the case. Sandy Hook is about the most significant thing which ever happened in Newtown and Lanza is elemental to even an adequate short statement about that event. People can be notable because they're famous or because they're infamous; to eliminate the infamous and only list the good ones violates the principle that Wikipedia is not censored. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Transporterman - first I agree with you that there is no issue on verifiability and I agree that wiki should not be censored. I disagree that he should be mentioned in the article at all. Yes, the event is significant, and should be mentioned, but it should be a simple mention and redirect to the main article describing the event. I think it diverts from the main point of the article to dedicate so much space to one single event that occurred in one day when that can be better treated in a separate article - it's a case of a single day's event taking over a more general article. If one were to argue if he should be included in a list of notable people relative to the shooting, I would entirely agree. I do not think it's the most important thing that's ever happened in the town - not by a long shot - but I do think it should be mentioned and handled in a separate article.

For comparison, if you look at the article on Virginia Tech, the shooter is not mentioned. The line "On April 16, 2007, the Virginia Tech massacre occurred on campus. 32 people were shot dead before the gunman killed himself, making it the deadliest shooting incident by a single gunman in U.S. history." is used, and the information on the shooting is in a sub article.

Similarly, if you look at the city in which it occurred, Blacksburg, VA, the shooter is not mentioned. The line "On April 16, 2007, 33 people (including the shooter) were killed in the Virginia Tech massacre." There is a link to the Virginia Tech Massacre which describes the shooter's identity and the events of that day.

Furthermore, the shooters in the Columbine are not mentioned as notable on the Columbine page.

It seems inconsistent within wiki standards that the Newtown shooter is mentioned when all the other incidents simply redirect to a sub article.71.88.34.212 (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Behind all of your wiki-lawyering, I suspect that WP:NOTCENSORED is the real issue here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not about censorship, and please do not assume my motives, but rather focus on my arguments. My belief is that, as FreeRangeFrog is saying, it's about relative weight within the article, and it's both inconsistent with other similar events, and overinflates the importance of one day in the history of a town that is already covered in detail in another article, making it redundant. 71.88.34.212 (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree with that, and I'd recognize that some people will want to contest that name being there at all. However, notability and list guidelines aside, my point was that there is almost a bit of weight issue here with the inclusion of the name in the context of that list, and that since his name redirects to an article that is already mentioned in the article, I saw no real reason to include it other that "omg Wikipedia is not censored". Far from being a censorship issue though, it's more about weight. But again, that's just my opinion. If consensus is that the name should be in the list, fine. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @IP: What happens in one Wikipedia article is not determinative of what happens in any other article, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Having said that, however, let me note that List of people from Burlington, Vermont includes Ted Bundy (who did nothing more there than be born there and be suspected, only, in one murder) and Plainfield, Wisconsin includes Ed Gein in its very short notable persons list. Their inclusion there is no more significant than the example which you give, but shows that there is no necessary inconsistency here: it's just WP:OTHERSTUFF. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC) PS: On the other hand, I do think that FreeRangeFrog has a point about the double inclusion, especially in an article this short, now I think about it for a minute. If this notable persons list was broken out into a standalone list, it might be a different matter and the name ought to be included, but now I'm neither strongly in favor or strongly opposed to its inclusion in the embedded list. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

As a former Newtown resident, I would take issue with him being mentioned in the same breath as Steven Kellogg and Charles Goodyear, both from an "importance" perspective and from the perspective that giving publicity to mass shooters who sought said publicity may very well encourage such behavior. I think it is now very clear that not only did the 12/14/12 shooter actively follow other mass shooters and try to best them but that many others who commit such crimes are in part motivated by the "immortality" that they believe suicide by cop within a mass murder context gives them. By not including his name in the main article on Newtown, I think wikipedia would strike a good balance between providing information on a newsworthy event and not giving further publicity to someone who clearly does not deserve it. Whether intended or not, the frame of "notable" connotes a certain aura of respectability and achievement and I think that's the last thing anyone wants to give him.69.250.86.164 (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

None of the other people currently listed in the list of notable people from Newtown is necessary to be listed in the article (except possibly Hawley) as they are not particularly important to the history of the town. Certainly, whatever reason we come up for keeping Lanza out would also apply to keeping Victoria Leigh Soto, and most of the rest of the list, out. --Polaron | Talk 21:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. Perhaps the list ought to be removed altogether, everyone else for that reason and Lanza because he's already been mentioned. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Polaron, I agree with you that whichever way it's decided, it would apply equally to Lanza and Soto. I think the most appropriate thing would be to remove both, and instead include them in the article on the shooting. Either way, I think clearly both should be in or both should be out. 71.88.34.212 (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I grew up in the Sandy Hook section of Newtown, CT and agree with Poloran and others that Lanza and Soto should both be removed from the list of notable people. I agree with the earlier commenter who noted that Lanza is not significant enough to merit notability or inclusion by name in the article, nor is Soto as the sole victim named. — Farmerbrown444 (talk) 01:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

How would people feel about removing both Lanza (the shooter) and Soto (the only victim listed) from the list of people and the paragraph in the beginning (as mentioned above, people who are notable enough to be in a list should be notable enough to be included in the article, and vice versa), and adding a line in the notable people section referring to the article on the shooting event for a list of those involved in the incident? Trying to find a consensus solution that is fair, uncensored, and properly addresses weight and redundancy issues. The article on the incident already includes detailed information on Lanza and a complete list of victims.

Alternately, we could include all the victims in the list as well as Lanza and Soto to keep balanced, but it seems to me that this would be a rather cluttered / disorganized solution, even if it would equally treat all those involved in the shooting. I would prefer the former solution.

Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks. 71.88.34.212 (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been sent a draft of a new book on mercury toxification (via dental amalgams, vaccines, fish, etc).

I believe there are enough data for the subject of mercury toxification to be regarded as notable (indeed it has a Wikipedia page).

The book quotes a lot of independent scholarly sources, to support its claims. It's also moderately written, and quite readable. It's written by a layman for laypeople.

However the book isn't notable.

1. Would it pass muster for a Wikipedia entry?

2. If not, would passing a certain sales figure make it notable - or would reviews and citations be required?

Thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.48.126 (talk) 09:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The book may or may not be a reliable source. A good place to get a review is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, if you have any question over its reliability. We do have a Wikipedia article titled Mercury poisoning which may be a useful place to add any additional information the book provides, or at the very least, to add it as a "further reading" entry. --Jayron32 11:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm unclear - are you suggesting an article on the concept of "mercury toxification" or on the book to which you are referring? 71.88.34.212 (talk) 03:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

If the book is from a reputable source and is in the process of publication, it might be cited. However, this is a topic that has been covered at great length in many sources, so you should consider citing those sources first. You should also start by contributing to Mercury poisoning before creating a new article. Andrew³²⁷ 04:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Ryan Spahn is an American Actor and screenwriter. He is a member of Group 43 at The Juilliard School, in the drama division. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sproutsanddawson (talk • contribs) 17:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

He must be very proud of the work he has done. Do you have a question we can answer for you? --Jayron32 19:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

ZOlo davidson is a musican — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmed humaam mohamed (talk • contribs) 13:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes he is, but it does not appear that he meets the requirements for having an article that we have established at WP:NMUSIC. Andrew³²⁷ 04:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Notable navigator. Discovered Hudson Bay. Maligned by Sabastian cabot.

Mentioned unfavorably in history books. In actuality saved his men by judicious retreats on more than one occasion.

Sir Thomas Pert, hero.

Mentioned in Wikipedia articles.

Deserves his own article.

Hudson's Bay was repeatedly visited, at an early period, by English navigators, though for a long time solely with a view to that great object of discovering a northwest passage. It appears that Sebastian Cabot, in 1517, first penetrated to this gulf, but did not view it as an enclosed sea, being convinced that if the commander, Sir Thomas Pert, had persevered, he might have reached the coast of India or China. This voyage, however, was lost sight of; so that when Hudson, in 1610, sailed through the straits now bearing his name, and found a wide, open expanse, it was considered a new discovery, and named from him Fretum Hudson, " the Hudson Sea." Nor was it yet recognised as a bay, but was viewed with hope as a part of the Pacific, and leading directly to the eastern coasts of Asia. The navigator, however, having been compelled to winter within the straits, where the crew were exposed to severe suffering, a violent mutiny arose among them, when he and several of his adherents were exposed in a little boat on this inhospitable shore, and doubtless perished. Only a few of the sailors, after enduring many calamities, made their way home, covered with a dark cloud of suspicion of having been at least passive instruments in the crime to which their leader fell a victim.*

In 1516, Cabot and Sir Thomas Pert, then Vice Admiral of England, sailed in two ships to explore the coasts of Brazil and the West Indies for Henry VIII.[1]. After coming under artillery fire at Hispanola, the expedition withdrew and returned to England reportedly because of Pert's faint-heartedness.[2][3] Subsequently, Cabot moved to Spain due to greater support for explorations by the Spanish king.

(Cabot's loyalty is in doubt) Sir Thomas is supposedly an ancestor of mine.

Henry VIII., probably not displeased at his return, 'furnished certen shippes,' says Richard Eden, with some funds, and appointed one Sir Thomas Pert first in command under Cabot, whose weakness, as we shall see, rendered the affair a failure. They sailed from England in 1517. Concerning their exact destination many disputes have arisen. Several historians say that they went on a trading voyage to the West Indies; but these accounts are so confused that we find them at one time off the coast of Labrador, and shortly after that as far south as Florida. The point is interesting, because, if Cabot really undertook a trading voyage, he must have relinquished, in a moment of pique, his hopes of discovering the northwest passage. The trading voyage, which, by a confusion of dates, is assigned to 1517, actually took place ten years after, in 1527. So that Cabot was neither so inconsistent, nor so ungrateful to the memory of his late patron, as to interfere with a trade to which the Spanish government laid an exclusive claim." Neither was Sebastian Cabot so unwise as to attempt to trade, under English colors, with islands owned by Spain! The truth is, probably, that he did not leave Spain for England at all, for many years after his arrival there in 1512. The treatment he received at the hands of the two Henrys (the one penurious, the other a rake and a spendthrift of mean capacity) had not been such as to encourage him to return. Neither had given him permanent employment, as had the king of Spain; neither had honored him in any manner whatever; so what had he to gain by going to England? But the self-blinded biographer goes on to say: "Contemporary and subsequent accounts represent Sir Thomas Pert as totally unfit to be second in command in such an expedition. His cowardice was sufficient to render his commander's energy ineffectual. They penetrated to about the 67th degree of north latitude and, entering Hudson's bay [now so called], gave English names to various places in the vicinity, when, as previously, doubts of success arose among the crew. The severity of the climate and many privations increased their eagerness to return, while Pert, a man of high command and influence, favored their remonstrances. Under such circumstances, it was impossible to quell the mutiny by force, and, the pilots [why 'pilots,' when Cabot himself was there?] being unable to convince the understandings of the crew, Cabot turned homeward. Although he had confessedly failed, he must have gained credit in England by his resolution, while Sir Thomas Pert seems to have been recognized as the cause of the miscarriage." Alas, poor Sir Thomas Pert! To be afflicted with such a name, and to have it maligned, besides passed down to posterity with a stigma attached to it by Sebastian Cabot! Proceeding in this apologetic vein as relates to Cabot, the biographer says: "Neither the merchants interested in the late unfortunate expedition, nor the king, who was then engaged on the continent, were disposed to renew an attempt to discover the long-desired passage. Moreover, a frightful disease known as the sweating-sickness prevailed in England in 1517, and prevented the people from thinking of an expensive and unpromising enterprise. Fortunately for Cabot affairs in Spain were in a better condition. Soon after his accession, Charles V., examining into the unsettled expedition of 1516 [which is purely conjectural, by the way], was surprised at the sudden disappearance of Cabot. He already knew something of his character, and the state records bore ample testimony of Ferdinand's high regard for him. These facts sufficiently exposed the jealousy and intrigues of the Spaniards, and Charles, anxious to atone for past injustice, appointed Cabot to the honorable office of pilot major of Spain." It is related as a rumor (confirmed by Sebastian Cabot) that the third year following his appointment as chief pilot he might have been found in England once more, having been lured thither, he averred, by Henry VIII.'s prime-minister, Cardinal Wolsey, who "made him great offers if he would re-enter the service of England and make new expeditions and discoveries for her." Such is the statement of Cabot; but it is manifestly untrue, coming so soon after an alleged expedition, which, as all admit, was so disastrous as to cool the ardor of both the king and the people. One might be led to think, from the frequency with which the Chief Pilot of Spain is said to have laid aside the cares of office and hied away to England, on the most frivolous pretexts, that he had not only little to do, but possessed the unlimited confidence of a government which was not prone to look upon such levity with indulgence. Spain was an exacting mistress, and would not have disregarded these frequent lapses of allegiance in one standing so high in official rank as Sebastian Cabot. In the year 1521, two members of Henry VIII.'s council, Sir Wolston Brown and Sir Robert Wynkfeld, urged the merchants of London to furnish five vessels for an expedition which was to be placed under command of "one man called, as understood, Sebastyan." He had, apparently, convinced the king this man Sebastyan [Cabot]—that said expedition would result greatly to his advantage; but the merchants' wardens, being cautious men, and withal having knowledge of the king's craftiness, demurred. They questioned whether the king and his council were duly informed as to the purposed expedition; and further, why credible reports had not been obtained of "maisters and mariners naturally born within this realm of England." And they add: "We think it were too sore a venture to jepord V shipps, with men and goods, unto the said Island, upon the singular trust of one man, called, as we understand, 'Sebastyan,' which Sebastyan, as we here say, was never in that land himself, all if [although] he makes report of many things as he bath heard his father and other men speke in tymes past." The hard-headed men of business, whose money would have to pay for the venture, were naturally against the proposition, though the king, having nothing to lose, might be in favor of it. But the merchants of London were unnecessarily exercised over the prospect of losing their ships and their capital, for, in all probability, Sebastian Cabot had no serious thought of making a voyage in the king of England's service. In truth, how could he, being a subsidized servant of Spain, and holding so conspicuous a position that his dereliction would be noticed at once? It is beyond belief that the haughty monarch, Charles V., would have allowed his pilot major to sail on a voyage for any other sovereign, in any capacity whatever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.101.70 (talk) 04:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

If you can honestly say he's "mentioned in history books", emphasis on the plural, then he's notable, though the sources read like he's more notable for being the guy Cabot blamed things on, from a quick skim. Revent (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, guys, I'm noticing that I have redirected some articles (Jazz (comics), Janus the Nega-Man, Jann of the Jungle, Jaeger (comics), Jack-in-the-Box (Marvel Comics), Death Wreck, Deadly Ernest, Deadeye (Starriors), Daze (comics), Rockwell Davis, Delphan Brothers, Dark-Crawler), but Tenebrae advised me that isn't correct and told me to come here. My reason for all this redirects is that those articles does nothing to highlight why the character is a significant fictional character through sources. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Except for Janus the Nega-Man ad Jann of the Jungle, I think Gabriel Yuji has a point about the relatively low notability of most of these characters. Maybe one or two of them have third=party published information about them, but the majority are minor characters with few appearances; and one of them Dark-Crawler, seems as if he can simply go into the "Alternte versions" section of Nightcrawler (comics).

I'm think that (again, except for Janus and Jann) that notability tags be placed at the remaining article. That will give other editors a chance to weigh in. What do we tin? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

This seem reasonable. I agree. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

If they are not independently notable outside of the scope of the article about the comic that they are in, generally (as is normally done in anime articles) the article about the subject is redirected to the article of the comic, or an article of a list of characters of that comic.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Person is mentioned in the article about Blanket Statementstein, which is as a band is encyclopedic, and he's mentioned in the article. Some third party decided to write a completely unsourced article about him, so he and the author got into an edit war, spiced with bits of random vandalism patrollers dropping in all evening (they were editing the page live from IPs, including multiple repeated section blanks). He actually wrote a decent article about himself, except for the fact that it's completely unsourced, because he's not 'notable'. The 'sources' he quotes are about the bands he was in, or links to places selling their albums, but he is not mentioned by name.

In the midst of this, he has become quite upset, multiple talk pages have gotten mangled, and several attempts to AFD, NPOV, etc the page have gotten deleted. The article is BLPPRODdable, but I doubt a tag on the page will last long enough to work.

I should mention that I was the one who unlinked Dennis Donaghy, as I mentioned on the "Blanket..." talk page. The only links to it had been added by the same IP that wrote the article, who claimed to the the subject. When I did so someone had already incorrectly tagged it as an orphan, which someone else deleted. Revent (talk) 11:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm removing my objection, after edits to the page by a third party adding additional associations to notable musicians. The article seems to justify inclusion now.

Revent (talk) 02:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

cityhotelsdeal.org is a premium travel booking service that makes the pre-holiday preparation easy and cost effective. Our flight and accommodation prices, more often than not, can better the big names that have been in the industry for years. Parallel to being an exceptional travel preparation service, cityhotelsdeal.org is also ideal for 'on-the-go' travellers as it's accessible anywhere at any time. We have been involved in the travel industry with years of travel trading to our name. However, travelling is such a broad market that it's not enough to just have knowledge of the business, experience is also essential. Over the years we have traveled extensively around the globe so you can be sure we understand what works and what doesn't.

Our Mission Statement...

1.To always maintain up to date data from our partnered hotels & airlines. 2.Ensure that its really easy to find what you want when you want with ease. 3.Always remain competitive with our prices compared to the main stream services currently available. 4.Continue to offer flexibility & choice of other related travel resources to our customers.

Our service as a global travel search engine is completely free for our users, we know they save money and time so we encourage everyone to share the travel love and spread the word about cityhotelsdeal.org to everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eulad (talk • contribs) 08:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Your article was deleted for being little more than an advertisement. In order to be considered for inclusion (assuming the article itself does not read like an ad), it must meet the relevant notability guidelines. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Dozens of ambassadors for their countries have had notability tags applied by User:Kleinzach. What criteria should we be looking at for this? I thought an ambassador representing their country in another country would meet WP:POLITICIAN as holding national office, but is it not as simple as that? Thanks in advance for any advice, Boleyn (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: this has also been discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Ambassadors: are they notable?.

The general sense of that discussion was that while many (even most) ambassadors will be notable, some will not be. Whether a specific ambassador is notable (or not) depends on coverage in reliable sources.

The likelihood of coverage will depend on which countries are involved, and the geo-policitcal situation at the time when the specific ambassador served. (It is very likely that the British Ambassador to Germany in 1935 has been mentioned in lots and lots of sources... sources that discuss his activities in great depth. The Canadian Ambassador to Switzerland in 1982?... less likely.) Blueboar (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Boleyn (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Do they meet the general notability guideline? There's no point in creating stubs based on some subject-specific criterion, if we don't have sufficient coverage by independent sources to build an encyclopædic article; and that is what the GNG looks for. bobrayner (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Boleyn is actually incorrect in saying that "Dozens of ambassadors for their countries have had notability tags applied by User:Kleinzach". Unfortunately when I started looking at this problem, I only had a slow connection and could only prod/notability tag a small number of articles, although I did find hundreds of minimal stubs of diplomats that apparently don't meet the criteria of WP:DIPLOMAT. Anyway most of the notices have been removed by two or three editors who regard any ambassador as automatically notable. Accordingly I've sent five articles to Afd as test cases. These are:

• Khalnazar Agakhanov
• Miyoko Akashi
• Jostein Helge Bernhardsen
• Olav Berstad
• Roy William Blake

I would be grateful if editors here could have a look at them. Thanks. Kleinzach 12:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I note the RfC: A proposal to see if consensus has changed regarding notability of certain diplomats, possibly modifying the guideline WP:DIPLOMAT. This discusses changes to the WP guidelines in line with the opinions of some editors who think ambassadors should be automatically notable. Kleinzach 11:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Semiotic engineering appears to be developed and used by only one university. The article's original author User:Simonedjb is affiliated with said university. All the sources are from the same author who is also affiliated with the university. I can't seem to find any WP:IS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlston.stevens (talk • contribs) 14:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be about a Kenyan soccer/football club for kids, and there are also separate articles describing the club's history; its 2011, 2012, and 2013 seasons; one of its managers; and some other related pages in What links here. It seems rather un-notable to me, and the sources for the main article look like they are mostly just other Wikipedia articles and standings. I definitely think having separate articles for each season is in violation of "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and I think the article on the club itself may even be too much, as it doesn't seem to have any third-party sources. That said, I think it's entirely possible I have a huge cultural bias, as soccer/football is pretty much ignored entirely here in the United States. Maybe it is notable from a Kenyan perspective. Thoughts? Should they all be kept? Some? None? Ethraen (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

This article reads like self-promotion and indiscriminate publicity for a business that never took off (no pun intended). Furthermore, the supporting links are dead and the performance and specification is typical of any air-cushion vehicle of its size. I have run internet searches, but I've only found one hit (an advert for an unused hull) but even that seems to refer to a different vehicle. The article has been tagged since 2011 and there has been little improvement since. I'll contact the tagging editor to respond here. Wikiwayman (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I've listed this at Articles for deletion after further research. Wikiwayman (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The article on Leah Busque looks like shameless self-promotion, but has been copywritten with an extreme number of references to appear as a valid article. The only reason the article seems to be there, is because the person is the founder of TaskRabbit.

However, it is highly doubtful whether this means we need a full description of her career and personal life, including two (!) pictures of herself, including one with her dog. Also note that half of the article is actually about TaskRabbit, and it includes completely uninteresting information identified by keywords such as "highschool sweetheart" and "theatre, dance, and spending time at home with her husband and Labrador".

Then, going over to TaskRabbit, we see a third (!) photograph of Busque, again with her dog, whose name "Kobe" is explicitly mentioned (also highly uninteresting). This leads me to conclude that "Leah Busque" was written to promote and justify "TaskRabbit", while the only justification of "Leah Busque" is "TaskRabbit".

Both articles have been largely written by the sock puppet User:MountainMan11. Articles like this highly decrease the overall quality of Wikipedia, please do something about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.22.146.31 (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep. TaskRabbit is definitely notable. Leah Busque is notable, too. Wikipedia is full of articles on people who are notable as the CEO of a company and have their own article. The quality of the articles—poorly written, promotional, or even a bit WP:INDISCRIMINATE—does not make either subject un-notable. Rather, both articles need major cleanup. You're right: poorly written articles reduce the overall quality of Wikipedia. You can be bold and start doing something about it. Ethraen (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Jaww is an application created by a group of developers in kuwait. It is very similar to spotify. Jaww provides the following features.

1. - Makes it very simple to create your own cloud full of your music.
2. - All what you need in Music World is available now in one application.
3. - Unique content for the most famous artist specially produced for Jaww.
4. - High quality original records.
5. - Tracks video clips.
6. - Local classifications for each song properties.
7. - Daily update for latest releases.
8. - Create your offline list and enjoy your tracks on the go even with no internet connection.
9. - Listen to 5 internet radio streaming.
10. - create your own radio Station with only your favorite tracks or you just tell the station for your Mood and listen to it.
11. - While song playing, Enjoy reading the lyrics while song playing, get all information about Song, Album and Artist.
12. - Invite a friend and share your favorites on Twitter and facebook.
15. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waeli2jj34 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi am MUIEZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.204.110.15 (talk) 10:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Why does this article exist? Evidence why it shouldn't: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Iurie_Boreico http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter_Scholze http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Darij_Grinberg

The same arguments as in the discussions linked to above apply here. Even much more strongly here, since the subjects above are tremendously more notable in terms of their research output (in particular Peter Scholze) and have still been excluded.

EDIT: Thanks, I will do so.

so file an AfD nomination... you don't need our permission first. Blueboar (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It has been requested that I write an article for Wikipedia on a company (in the interestes of full disclosure I do consulting work for the company in question).

The main rationale behind this request is that one of their competitors (Sunstone Circuits) has a Wikipedia entry. The Sunstone entry is quite promotional (claims without backup). My intent would to be entirely factual, but most of my information comes straight from the company's website (history, certifications, standards). I would be able to provide some interesting cross references such as linking to the Wikipedia article on Printed Circuit Boards and standards organizations.

I have no interest in doing hours and hours of work just to have it edited away by someone. So my question is: if I read the Wiki instructions my intended article would be borderline at best, but on the other hand Sunstone is able to make claims as being the first to do this and that with no backup links to support their claims. Please provide some coaching for me here folks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce Johnston 23 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

First, given that you do consulting work for this company you should definitely read: WP:NOT#Advertizing and WP:Conflict of interest. Second, the fact that one of the company's competitors (Sunstone) has an article does not mean that the company you work for will be considered notable enough for an article. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Every company has to be considered on its own merits, per WP:ORG. That said... To establish that a company is notabile, you will need to show that it has been discussed (in some detail) by several sources that are completely independent of the company... At the moment you only reference the company itself, which is not good enough. So my first questions is: do you have any independent sources? Blueboar (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

As an update... I took a look at the article on Sunstone ... and have nominated it for deletion. It did not reference any independent sources either. Blueboar (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I have concerns about the notability of Michael Kitces. What worries me most is that the article was created and mostly edited by Finplanwiki who has been displaying a remarkably strong desire to both (1) add opinions from Kitces's personal blog to Wikipedia, also using it as a reference [2], and (2) to ensure that the Kitces article does not get deleted. [3] Add to the mix a mysterious one-contribution editor who chimed in at the original AfD, and I suspect that it all points to this person being non-notable and using Wikipedia as a forum for self-promotion. I opened a second AfD here WP:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Kitces_(2nd_nomination). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course I care. I spent time writing it up and now you want to take it down, after someone else already wasted my time going through this once. You incorrectly accuse me of lying about who I am, if I don't defend myself I must be lying, if I do defend myself you claim it's proof I'm lying anyway. Circular logic much? And first you claim it's a notability problem, then you claim it's self-promotion (apparently implying you agree the article is notable after all?). Just keep coming up with reasons to object and one of them will eventually work, right? This is like a witch trial. This was all hashed through and resolved in the last AfD nomination, anyone reviewing can go re-read it again. Finplanwiki (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Notability was not resolved in the previous AfD, I withdrew it to allow for improvements which have not materialized. I concur with TRHoPH's assessment of the highly likely relationship between Finplanwiki and the subject. Finplanwiki is right about one thing, the other working professionals he is promoting should be AfD'd. Sorry to discuss this here vs in the AfD.--Nixie9✉ 16:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Response - Nixie I made improvements you suggested and left a comment for you about it inviting further feedback and criticism. If you still had concerns I don't understand why you didn't bring them up at any point in the past several months. The article now includes recognized research in our industry, with citations, and lists multiple awards and recognition in our industry, all of which support notability in our field. If you don't consider these people to be notable in our industry, please list who you DO consider to be notable in the field of financial planning that should be here instead, since you both indicate you're apparently so knowledge about who is and isn't notable in a particular industry with which you have no apparent affiliation? Just because it's not YOUR field doesn't mean it can't have notable people! If you have better lists of who our field's notables are, I'm all ears. Finplanwiki (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a self-promotion and it's a notability problem. Just because someone is a speaker on the financial planning conference circuit, do we need a Wikipedia article on him? If so, does that mean we need Wikipedia articles on every speaker in every industry's conference circuit, in every country in the world? Of course not. Yes he may have one article in the WSJ, does that mean we need an entry for every single person who's ever had an article published in the WSJ? Matt Krantz of USA Today doesn't even have an article and he's read by millions every day. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not self-promotion and notability is based on contributions and awards in the person's individual field^[1]. As detailed the last time this went through AfD and in the bio itself, this person qualifies on the basis of both. He's probably even more famous than Marv Tuttle and Alexandra Armstrong in our field, although for some reason none of those other bios I wrote have gone up for AfD and this one has, not to mention other people in our field like Dave Yeske and Harold Evensky and Deena Katz. But there's no reason for those to stay and this one to be deleted. Not that I'm asking you to take down every bio I've written for our industry! You may not know or care about the notables in our industry, but this is our industry and we do! And by the way, a 2-second Google search reveals he has lots of WSJ articles^[2], not just one, and being a significant contributor to a major news agency qualifies for notability too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finplanwiki (talk • contribs) 00:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I put the following of the talk page of Nurgaliev's law as well, but since I am recommending that the page be deleted, I have put it here as well. I have never heard of this is population biology and I asked a mathematical demographer who had never heard of it either. Google Scholar comes up only with Malthus which obviously doesn't have it. Google books says it is in Preston et al.'s Demography book (a standard textbook) but it is not in the index of that book and a quick scan yields nothing. A generic google search sends me to pages that as far as I can tell all trace back to wikipedia. The wikipedia article itself sources a book and a Russian webpage. I can't find the book through obvious sources like google or amazon. The ISBN leads me to what I assume is the actual source - a book of conference proceedings from 2006 whose title is (I think) in Slovak. Anyway, the Russian webpage seems to be a 2009 talk by Nurgaliev who cites a paper of his from that 2006 book. So this author (Nurgaliev) is very plausibly the only person who has ever referred to or used such an equation and it is not in a source that is going be to widely read or cited. Perhaps more importantly, this 'law' doesn't seem to be important at all. The only way that I can see how it could make any sense is if we literally are looking at the probability of offspring from arbitrary pairs of people (Barack Obama and random person [male or female?] living in New Guinea). That way there are N^2 pairs. But these numbers are obviously not possible to estimate and we always use the much more obvious (measurable) birth rate per capita. Even if somehow we could estimate the probabilities at a time (the author seems to say the average probability is 2^-11) this is obviously dependent on population size and so will be changing through time. Clearly it is far more useful to try to find something close to constant (like birth rate per capita). Now if you really cared to, you could first estimate the population numbers and then estimate the author's 'a' and then multiply by N^2, but this is a roundabout calculation of what we already know. Am I missing something? Jdvelasc (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The entire two library holdings of the conference proceedings don't indicate a high degree of notability to me, and the author of the article there is probably Nurgaliev. http://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=wikipedia&q=isbn%3A5839901539 The other source is the text of a speech given by Nurgaliev, which means a total lack of secondary sources. Revent (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I've left a comment on the talk page of the article in question agreeing - with qualifications - with another user (user:81.98.35.149) who has also commented on the page as being of dubious importance. His suggestion is that the entry be cleaned up or/plus redirected to Population logistics. My opinion is that, as this terminology is in use - although not attributable to Nurgaliev per se - logic would dictate that a redirect to an appropriate article/entry with a brief, dedicated paragraph would be the most effective way of purging an unwarranted page without completely disregarding the existence of the loose use of this term. A simple redirect would do. I, too, have googled the term and have only found links to forums emulating the Russian language forums, but the English language links are all neglected & even throw up warning messages against venturing into the sites. While we have no control over what is entered as being relevant in any of the Wiki's, there is a point at which obscure internet forums using a favoured flavour of terminology (always with specific political objectives as their driving force, may I add) become self-perpetuating bytes of pseudo-information. The fact of information existing in cyberspace most certainly does not automatically make it noteworthy. My objection, therefore, is to the exploitation of Wikipedia as a political tool that validates any socio-political agendas simply because they have created their own momentum on the internet. This entry can be traced to a Russian organisation known as the International Youth Innovation Forum and is definitely agenda driven. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)