User:Ikip/results

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="#Logical_Information_Machines"><span class="tocnumber">1</span> <span class="toctext">Logical Information Machines</span></a></li>

Total number of articles up for deletion review on 27JAN10 @ 03:06:58 UTC: 13

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was keep. The books about him make notability clear. JohnCD (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Jay E. Adams Jay E. Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Effectively unreferenced BLP that I had trouble finding any independent sources for. Prodded as promotional with self-interested sources, prod was seconded, and then was contested. Gigs (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Delete, on this one. Noble idea, interesting idea, certainly innovative. But unfortunately, he's not really notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Not that this is particularly relevant to your vote, but in what way is advocating discrimination against nonchristians innovative? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Endorse prod, er, I mean delete due to lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. JBsupreme (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Keep worldcat lists 20 separate books about him [1], as well as 23 theses [2] How anyone can then say there are no sources for notability escapes me entirely. (I will say I am a little surprised; although I did not expect to find anything, and certainly not this much, I looked anyway) DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC) keep per DGG. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Strong keep. He's one of the key writers in the field. I'll see if I can add some references. StAnselm (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Keep Per DGG. Warrah (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Comment. I've added quotations from Derek Tidball and John F. MacArthur to the article in order to establish notability. StAnselm (talk) 04:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. Jay E. Adams 1 of 13 Google News 11 Books 623 Scholar 248 Editor Count: 44 Creator: Cadillac Nominator: Gigs Flex 6 (0/6) 2008-05-19 Canihaveacookie 6 (6/0) 2008-08-01 70.147.149.90 5 (5/0) 2009-02-24 209.242.238.30 3 (3/0) 2007-01-06 209.12.251.98 3 (3/0) 2007-03-19 Howcheng 3 (2/1) 2009-02-24 Psychless 2 (2/0) 2007-08-28 SmackBot (bot) 2 (0/2) 2009-03-31 68.73.225.12 2 (2/0) 2009-02-04 Wmc1982 2 (2/0) 2009-02-17 LtNOWIS 2 (1/1) 2005-08-18 24.209.128.80 2 (2/0) 2008-08-01 Mairi 1 (1/0) 2005-08-18 65.4.188.205 1 (1/0) 2006-01-13 Dbyrd 1 (1/0) 2006-03-22 Reformatio 1 (1/0) 2006-05-16 StAnselm 1 (1/0) 2007-04-04 AlleborgoBot (bot) 1 (0/1) 2007-09-26 24.247.216.242 1 (1/0) 2007-11-25 60.240.65.202 1 (1/0) 2008-09-07 Alansohn 1 (0/1) 2009-02-04 Chris Capoccia 1 (0/1) 2009-10-27 Bearian 1 (1/0) 2010-01-26 Bgeelhoed 1 (1/0) 2010-01-26 Caerwine 1 (1/0) 2005-09-20 Suicidalhamster 1 (0/1) 2006-02-20 68.159.68.77 1 (1/0) 2006-04-13 TheEditrix 1 (0/1) 2006-06-06 68.167.186.98 1 (1/0) 2006-07-14 74.242.180.100 1 (1/0) 2007-03-18 Emote 1 (1/0) 2007-03-28 199.107.167.244 1 (1/0) 2007-07-06 David Gerard 1 (1/0) 2007-09-25 Alastair Haines 1 (1/0) 2007-10-07 CJLindsay 1 (1/0) 2008-01-07 Rich Farmbrough 1 (1/0) 2008-09-05 BountyHunter2008 1 (0/1) 2008-09-07 ChemGardener 1 (1/0) 2009-02-04 75.3.251.63 1 (1/0) 2009-02-18 Jbolden1517 1 (1/0) 2009-04-09 Closedmouth 1 (1/0) 2010-01-26 Eastmain 1 (0/1) 2010-01-27 The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Daniel Foa Daniel Foa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics) Hiu Ng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Two non-notable young businessmen, articles created by User:51Give, which is the name of their "social entrepreneurship business." The most significant coverage I can find on either of them in anything like a reliable source is a one-sentence mention in China Daily (Google Translate version here). Is 51Give a WP:NOBLECAUSE? Maybe, but its principals are not there yet in terms of notability.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Delete all. Both articles read like CVs. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Delete * looks like spam to me. JBsupreme (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Delete Very close to a speedy deletion as G11 for being exclusively promotional. DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Delete Unless we are hosting resumes now. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Delete Not notable. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. Daniel Foa 2 of 13 Google News 4 Books 9 Scholar 1 Editor Count: 4 Creator: 51Give Nominator: Glenfarclas Lidaying 7 (7/0) 2010-01-27 178.82.173.113 2 (2/0) 2010-01-26 The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. Consensus seems to be that WP:NOTNEWS applies here. NW (Talk) 02:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Lloyd R. Woodson Lloyd R. Woodson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) All he was arrested for was a multiple weapons charge and a few other things. All he is known for is one event. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Keep The issue of notability was discussed briefly on the articles talk page. The article is becoming rather lengthy from prominent sources which would not be possible were it not of some notability. I say this on the assumption that notability was your rational for recommending it for deletion. And, those weapons that he was charged with possessing are for more than hnting or holding up a 7-11. Supertouch (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC) There are others out there who are likely arrested daily for these types of things. He really isn't all that different from other people who have a massive gun collection and are arrested. A few years ago, a guy nearby my house was arrested with an arsenal, and he wasn't notable by Wikipedia standards. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Did he have the breadth of RS coverage that we are seeing here -- already, every major RS in the US, and now those outside the US are picking it up as well?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Maybe. I wasn't focused on looking for external links on what I already knew though. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC) I agree with you to an extent, that this article is not notable. However, the specter of terrorism, even if one substantiated by a headdress is what adds a healthy dose of notability to an otherwise routine--and perhaps troubling--incident. Supertouch (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Keep. In just a few hours since the triggering event took place, this has been covered in depth by what appears to be every major RS in the United States (see the refs in the article for a sampling, or hit google news), and now coverage from around the world is streaming in. Meets WP's notabilty standards. Clearly not local "routine news coverage".--Epeefleche (talk) 04:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC) This is still a one event type of individual. His event just happens to be covered by a lot of world media on a rather slow news day. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Many individuals are one-event individuals; especially arrested people. The question is the level of RS coverage. Here, it is extraordinarily broad. When you have 500 articles in the first 50 hours, and the largest RSs are all without exception covering it with multiple in-depth articles, it is notable. BTW, there are 50,000 BLP articles that don't have even one footnote that are on wikipedia. Among those one is more likely to find what is truly non-notable. This article already has more RS coverage reflected that we likely have on the vast majority of existing wip articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Comment So go fix those other articles, that has no bearing on this issue. Grsz11 14:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Other stuff exists may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this. Here, it is part of a larger, cogent argument.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Delete He was arrested because he carried a gun. This is not notable. Media coverage will go away in a day and than this guy is another prisoner somewhere in the US. --Stone (talk) 10:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Update: Media coverage continued, and spread to Europe, Asia, and South America. His weapons were military-grade, and more than "a gun". Woodson admitted he intended to use the weapons in furtherance of a violent crime. Fort Drum was notified by the authorities. According to a law enforcement source, other items were recovered that could indicate ties by Woodson to radical Islam and a militant Islamic group based in the U.S.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Delete In order to preempt WP:NOTNEWS we need extensive, prolonged coverage. This was news for a day (maybe two) and despite the existence of articles about the subject, he does not pass WP:BLP1E for that reason. Grsz11 14:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC) That's not true. Otherwise, any event that is two days old would never warrant a wikipedia article. Which is clearly not the case.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Sometimes you can estimate that there will be prolonged new coverage. What makes you think that he will be in the news longer than two days? He is not a terrorist and he killed nobody. His 15 minutes of fame are over and thats not good enough for a wikipedia article.--Stone (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Delete, this is a textbook example of why we have WP:NOTNEWS in the first place. JBsupreme (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Delete unless something very much more comes of it. (I was asked my opinion of it before it was listed here, and I advised listing it for deletion). It is however false that we need prolonged coverage before we can have an article, if it appears reasonably likely to be of permanent interest. This is a good example of something that probably does not. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Delete. Sorry, this is a blatant BLP violation and example of why Wikipedia does not lead. Here we have official evidence and statements he was arrested but not convicted and most tellingly that he is not considered a terrorist. We likely could come up with numerous other things he has been accused of but to be notable as a criminal or terrorist we lack sources of either. Perhaps the article is simply too soon? Maybe he will become well-known but for now we remain not a WP:Crystal ball. -- Banjeboi 03:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC) With all due respect, we routinely reflect those who have been arrested but not convicted. See, for example, the suspects in the Fort Hood shootings and the 2009 Christmas Day Bombing. In those cases, as well, the charges are not at this point under terrorism statutes--that is not a requirement either. The wikipedia test is not conviction. Is is coverage in reliable sources, which we have an abundance of here -- literally hundreds, from across the US and around the world, in just three days -- much more coverage than we have vis-a-vis many others who have been at AfDs, and who have survived AfDs specifically because they were considered to have sufficient RS coverage to qualify as notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Those people actually killed somebody or attempted to. All Lloyd did was get caught with weapons. The headdress reason for keeping the article is also concerning because it makes it look like he is notable because he was wearing one, he is "associated" with terrorism. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC) He was caught w/military grade weapons and a detailed map of a military establishment. He wasn't wearing the headdress--it was with his weapons and map. It's not clear that he was associated with terrorism; preliminary conclusions were that no evidence of that had been discovered in the first few hours -- readers can draw their own conclusions, one of which may very well be a "false flag" one, particularly if it turns out he is not Muslim (though of course that is not for us to do -- synthesis, and all that). But no doubt the press/public is interested because of the parallels to the Fort Hood shooting, and other attacks in the past few years on US military in the US.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Nadal has about 4 to 5 times daily as many views as Nadal Hasan, according to Wikichecker. I also think that the counts for Lloyd will be inflated because he is up for an AFD and he has a current events tag on his page. In a few days, he will be unknown as people tend to forget this stuff rather quickly. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Keep. The plentiful sources attest to the long-term notability. Perhaps the article can be renamed "Lloyd R. Woodson arrest".--PinkBull 03:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC) I have no problem w/the renaming of the article, if that is a consensus view (assuming redirects for his name to it).--Epeefleche (talk) 03:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Or perhaps "Speculated planned attack on Fort Drum"? wjematherbigissue 23:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Keep. This is the same problem with the "murder of" people articles when a murder that reaches international news coverage, but it is argued that the person that was murdered is not notable. Coverage of the person extends back to his Navy desertion days, so his biography is notable in itself beyond this single arrest, especially since his arsenal goes way beyond Nidal Hassan's two handguns. Unlike Flight 253 or Fort Hood, there is no notable location or name for this event besides the name of the man unless it's the "quickie mart attack plot" or some similar title that becomes popular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bachcell (talk • contribs) 04:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:109PAPERS. I'll change my mind if this is still getting media attention in a week, but for now it just seems like another crime story of brief news interest but no lasting notability. Robofish (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Delete - I would normally say that WP:BLP1E applies, except that there's no event associated with this person. Must have been a slow news day or something, but WP:NOTNEWS still applies. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 09:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Delete. Now the initial hysteria has passed, it is clear that unless something major happens, this is a non-notable news story. Indeed, it is a minor news story that has rightly been given no coverage at all in many countries, including the UK. The short sub-section in the Fort Drum article more than adequately covers the subject, and I'm not entirely sure that is necessary either. wjematherbigissue 09:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC) I imagine the "hysteria" you refer to is the coverage in many RSs of his arrest. RS coverage in hundreds of news articles, even if you view it as hysterical in nature (reflecting your POV), is precisely the indicia we look for to determine if an article is noteworthy. The article itself already reflects coverage -- generally in full-length articles -- by ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, UPI, Fox News, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, USA Today, the Boston Herald, and Forbes, among others, as well as in France in the Agence France-Presse. Furthermore, contrary to your insinuation, it's clearly more than local news, and there is no requirement of course that the Brits cover it. That said, it also is apparently being covered in The Netherlands,[3][4][5] Hungary,[6][7] Canada,[8][9], Poland,[10] Brazil,[11] Pakistan,[12] Taiwan,[13] and the Spanish-language Univision.[14] You may have missed those as you were looking for coverage outside the U.S.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC) I would ask you to not misrepresent what I said. Nowhere did I say this was a local news story. I stated that the press in many countries including the UK have not reported this incident at all. That still stands. These are news providers that pick up all the major news wires (AP, Reuters, AFP, etc.), but they have chosen to ignore this story. In addition, based on gnews, there has been barely any coverage in the past 2–3 days. The hysteria (yes, my POV) was due to the initial assumption that the guy was some kind of terrorist, which has since been dispelled. Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT, volume of news coverage is not an indicator of notability, and the widespead reporting that you cite is simply routine coverage. wjematherbigissue 23:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC) If all you meant to say was that the incident has been reported on in the U.S., France, The Netherlands, Hungary, Canada, Poland, Brazil, Pakistan, and Taiwan, but not in the U.K. to your knowledge and some other countries, that is not especially strong support for your vote. IMHO. As to what the initial coverage was due to -- you've no basis at all for your statement. Indeed, the earliest indication was that Woodson did not appear to have a link to a known terrorist group or a terrorist plot, but it was stressed that that was only a "preliminary finding." Second, later reports have indicated that Woodson admitted he intended to use the weapons in furtherance of a violent crime (that just came out Friday), and that other items were recovered that could indicate ties by Woodson to radical Islam and a militant Islamic group based in the U.S.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Keep Comment. This appears to be an attempt to censor what on the face of it appears to be yet another plot of a violent attack on an Army base, so far every one including Little Rock, Fort Hood, and the underpants bomber motivated by the Jihadist belief that US soldiers must be killed according to Islamic decree. The suspect has already admitted intention to commit crimes with the small arsenal that he had. The fact that the FBI has pronounced this not a terrorist act so quickly makes this notable, and likely that like Fort Hood, the statement is a cover-up that there is enough evidence pointing to terrorism to make it worth doing a cover up. The authorities will NOT comment further on what the guy said. This is a significant event, even if it dies down remains a notable event as part of a pattern of violence against military and civilian targets by Jihadists, even if it proves to be a false link (and so far there have been no false positives)Bachcell (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC) The user already voted "keep" above. This vote is not needed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC) No doubt he meant to header it a Comment. I've made the change for him above.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC) yes, if that's the way that it works. Now information says that he intended to commit violent crimes, and evidence points to islamic extremist connections. This is not just your normal neighborhood police blotter when sombody's car got broken into down the street. What is the real motivation for voting to suppress what looks like yet another attempted attack similar to Little Rock, fort Hood, and fort Dix??? How many of these people are still convinced Fort Hood had no connections to terrorism, as the FBI and Army have unbelievably concluded? Bachcell (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC) I would recommend sticking to policy discussion and moving away from vague mumblings about conspiracies. Ridernyc (talk) 05:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Delete WP:NOTNEWS, notable for one event that the media tried to sensationalize. Article is already turning into a POV nightmare for one event. If there are new developments, and if there is continued in depth coverage recreate the article. Ridernyc (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Keep this is a topic of ongoing public interest. Woodson may be notable only for one event, but in the absence of any obvious target for a move or redirect, I think it's appropriate that his name should be the article title. This clearly goes way beyond an ordinary "guy gets arrested for unlicensed gun collection" news story. Wikipedia is not news but we do have many articles on notable events which have been reported in the news, and rightly so; and significantly, we also have a neutral point of view policy which is enforced usually quite effectively through collective editing. Maintaining this article on a notable subject serves the public interest. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 08:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Zero gnews hits for over two days would indicate interest has gone away. There is a POV issue with regards speculation and conspiracy therories related to terrorism. The article's creator and it's major contributor are both pushing this issue and have done so both in this article and others by insisting on links to islamic groups and other attacks such as Fort Hood. I have contested some additions which have been reverted, and attemped discussion but other than the two editors mentioned, there is no-one else seemingly prepared to engage in the discussion, so natural collective editing consensus is not happening here. Finally, WP is an encyclopedia, it is not here to serve the public interest. wjematherbigissue 09:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Isn't it? I thought that was kind of the point of a free encyclopaedia.Contains Mild Peril (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC) After the first event (the arrest, which was broadly covered), the second series of events (the court appearances) was also broadly covered. "No gnews hits in two days" is hardly a wikipedia notability test warranting deletion -- if it were, much of wikipedia would be deleted. Plus, it was just yesterday that this was covered in an editorial, and it has been the subject of articles by the newspapers with four of the five largest circulations in the U.S. (among others) --Epeefleche (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC) WP provides a service to the public, that of an encyclopaedia. Serving the public interest is an entirely different thing. News stories require more than routine coverage to meet criteria for inclusion. Google news hits, as I stated, is an indicator of long term coverage, one of the criteria that could be met. Widespread routine coverage is specifically not one of the criteria, but editorials are. However the single one you cite is a critique of the Obama administration and not an article about this Woodson or his arrest. Any mention of him is incidental to the piece. wjematherbigissue 18:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC) In today's world, one lives with a sensationalization of events that are rather trivial. This one is just that. So what if he had guns? I'm sure that if he didn't have a headdress, there wouldn't be an article on him. Fox News could've reported it in a different tone than the BBC, so there is also a bias that must be contended when writing an article. I actually just Googled his name, and this page came up. I think we should consider a neutral view when writing articles, as his is also full of a lot of fluff. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. Lloyd R. Woodson 3 of 13 Google News 0 Books 0 Scholar 0 Editor Count: 5 Creator: Bachcell Nominator: Ktr101 Epeefleche 41 (33/8) 2010-01-27 Supertouch 8 (0/8) 2010-01-26 Ridernyc 1 (1/0) 2010-01-26 The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Iconics Iconics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) A company developing industrial automation software. Author's name suggests blatant COI. Scant evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Weak keep. References are included with the article. A reference doesn't have to be primarily about the company to be valid. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Keep. Independent references are adequate and reliable. LotLE×talk 03:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Keep as per Lulu. Minor, but there are independent refs. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Keep /* Iconics */ I say keep, refs are independent from other sources and they talk abouttechnology used within industrial automation --Timdonaldson33 (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timdonaldson33 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Delete. This is essentially a PR brochure; notability is a side issue. And at any rate, references like Automation World and Treatment Plant Operator Magazine - Dedicated to Municipal Wastewater Professionals would appear to be media of limited interest and circulation. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Then that would be a copyediting issue (and fixed by editing rather than deletion), not one of notability. Nor is a limited circulation trade magazine barred from being RS. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Comment. All spam should be deleted, whether it qualifies for speedy deletion or not. Trade publications of limited interest and circulation have circulations often no larger than a local newspaper. They cover trade related businesses and events in more minute detail than general interest publications do. This means that they cover run of the mill businesses that fall within their interest. And they frequently repeat information given to them by business insiders with minimal critical attention. So no, trade coverage does not necessarily result in notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Comment. This article is in accordance with Wikipedia's policy for NPOV (Neutral Point of View). The entry is educational, providing an accurate discription of what the firm ICONICS does. If author(s) are motivated by profit, he/she could be more immoderate. Other vendors in the Industrial Automation space have similar Wikipedia entries; knowledge of ICONICS history, products and services is relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.15.133.9 (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Keep organizations are notable if 1 - the scope of their activities is national or international (verifiable list of global projects included in entry) in scale, and if 2 - information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources (see links to Microsoft and publications). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.15.133.9 (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. Iconics 4 of 13 Google News 955 Books 771 Scholar 1170 Editor Count: 6 Creator: Nick iconi Nominator: RHaworth Timdonaldson33 4 (3/1) 2010-01-19 12.15.133.9 3 (3/0) 2010-01-25 24.250.23.217 1 (1/0) 2010-01-19 Eastmain 1 (1/0) 2010-01-27 The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was deleted and redirected to travertine, which already contains more information on travertine flooring than the most recent version does. Prior version read like a sales brochure and was a likely copyvio; stubbed version had no context. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Travertine flooring Travertine flooring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Article had 3k of content a month ago, deleted to a one-liner by two edits from different anon IPs, on the very probable grounds of being lifted from commercial advertising. The big content was a reasonable stub, but too suspicious to restore. The small content is too poor to let survive. I've AfDed this rather than speedying it, just in the hope that someone might pick it up and rework it (In which case, keep it), otherwise it ought to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Delete. I do love how the nom basically tries to use this forum for cleanup though.  ;-) JBsupreme (talk) 08:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC) It's a fair target for speedy under WP:CSD#G1 as a fragment, but without doing legwork to trace the source I couldn't #G12 it for obvious copyright. As the topic itself is clearly worthy, I'd be annoyed if I'd worked on it myself and someone then speedied it. Prodding it wasn't going to achieve much, as there clearly aren't many editors watching it. If someone has the time to go back to December, use that as a source rather than as content, and copy-edit it to remove the copyvio problem, it's probably saveable - but I've not got the time to do it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Redirect in the interim to travertine, which currently contains more information about the use of this stone in architecture than this does. The subject may be worthy of an article, but this current stub has no context. There were more informative versions in history[15] but they read like unreferenced sales brochures, and the subject seems to be better covered at the article about the stone itself. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Redirection and adding a short section on use for flooring sounds good to me. We can recreate without salty prejudice if anyone wants to in the future. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Comment. If the past versions are suspected of being copyvio, this should be deleted before redirect. This seems to be the fairly clear Right Thing to Do here, so I will probably just do it in a few hours unless strong objection is made. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. Travertine flooring 5 of 13 Google News 226 Books 164 Scholar 15 Editor Count: 10 Creator: Arizonie Nominator: Andy Dingley Fabrictramp 2 (1/1) 2009-10-02 Katharineamy 1 (0/1) 2009-10-05 Woohookitty 1 (0/1) 2009-12-07 129.107.27.54 1 (1/0) 2010-01-25 Malcolma 1 (0/1) 2009-10-14 129.25.134.123 1 (1/0) 2009-12-12 129.107.34.90 1 (1/0) 2010-01-26 Eastmain 1 (1/0) 2010-01-27 The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Nagaruban Arumugam AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Nagaruban Arumugam Articles for deletion/Nagaruban Arumugam 2 Nagaruban Arumugam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Non-notable doctor who got news coverage after being unfortunate enough to be cut down in a car accident. No other coverage. No notable achievements for being a great surgeon or researcher, or a notable health bureaucrat. Getting a condolence from the local member of parliament is not enough, as they send out hundreds of congratulations/condolences each month for constituents eg, doing well in a high school exam, getting selected in a state youth sports team, turning 100 years old, a local sporting/ethnic/religious club opening a new building, etc. We are not going to have an article for every police officer, firefighter, state emergency service volunteer etc who was killed in action, bushfires, etc, politicians routinely attend funerals of these people YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Delete. Sad, but Wikipedia is not a WP:MEMORIAL. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Delete: Only coverage is about his death. Sad, but not encyclopedic in my opinion. Turgan Talk 02:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Delete: Per WP:ONEEVENT. Joe Chill (talk) 03:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Keep: Noted extensively in the parliament for his services; noted in the editorial of a state-wide newspaper. It is "encyclopaedic" for the people and the communities that benefitted from his service. Hence it is in the spirit of Wiki to keep this article. 6billionth sapien (talk) 03:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Delete: Per nominator. I can only agree with the comments already made: this is sad, this man sounds like a fine individual, but is not notable (see WP:ONEEVENT). -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 04:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Delete — per nom. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Delete per nom, both WP:MEMORIAL and WP:ONEEVENT apply in this case, sadly. JBsupreme (talk) 07:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Comment: This article was at DRV a week ago: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 19. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Delete Per nominator and earlier comments from other editors. Warrah (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Delete I was the proposer at 1st AfD. I've looked really hard at merging, but given the "grueling" hours that Nagaruban Arumugam was working before his car crash was 50/week, and that the mention in the Australian Parliament was a one-liner in a multi-column question by a backbencher trying to make a point about health funding in his electorate (no parliamentary condolence motion, no further mention by that or any other member since), this is totally a WP:1E and not worthy even of mention in Medical resident work hours. There has been no coronial attribution of crash, particularly to exhaustion which would justify mention in Medical resident work hours. In short, not notable due to WP:1E and as best I can tell not worthy of even a mention in an encyclopedia. Josh Parris 02:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC) It appears that the member for Parkes spoke for several minutes on the matter; my recollection of the material was incorrect. Then the member for Port Adelaide expressed, on behalf on the government, condolences to the family of the doctor that the member for Parkes spoke of. On that same day, condolences were expressed in the parliamentary record for 1,053 other people. My opinion is unchanged. Josh Parris 02:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. Nagaruban Arumugam 2 6 of 13 Google News 4 Books 0 Scholar 0 Editor Count: 18 Creator: 6billionth sapien Nominator: Josh Parris 140.168.69.130 8 (8/0) 2010-01-11 Kopiharan 7 (7/0) 2010-01-04 124.168.180.93 5 (5/0) 2010-01-04 203.36.227.227 3 (3/0) 2010-01-03 Vejvančický 2 (1/1) 2009-10-28 Woohookitty 2 (0/2) 2009-11-03 124.170.80.29 2 (2/0) 2009-11-01 YellowAssessmentMonkey 2 (2/0) 2010-01-27 124.170.64.226 1 (1/0) 2009-10-30 Tim Song 1 (1/0) 2009-11-05 124.170.221.251 1 (1/0) 2009-11-22 CommonsDelinker (bot) 1 (0/1) 2010-01-13 Ged UK 1 (1/0) 2009-10-28 114.76.181.164 1 (1/0) 2009-11-08 SmackBot (bot) 1 (0/1) 2009-12-10 Ida Shaw 1 (0/1) 2010-01-11 The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was merge to Military of Malaysia. The original reason for deletion isn't really valid. The keep arguments are overall stronger than the delete arguments, but fail to address the issue brought up that the article is a content fork that gives undue weight to unrelated events. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Malaysian Military Scandals Malaysian Military Scandals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) POV fork and attack page in violation of BLP Monkeyassault (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Comment: what page is this forked from? Can you provide some more info on this AfD? andyzweb (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC) This is laughable as this is not a biography of a living person or a violation of it. The user Monkeyassault in all honesty is a Malaysian government stooge and cybertrooper. Roman888 (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC) It is forked from Najib Tun Razak. Roman888 has a history of behavior like this. Last month he created another POV fork called "Scandals of Najib Tun Razak." It was merged into the main article. This is just a reincarnation of that fork. Monkeyassault (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC) It is apparent that this individual continues to dabble in censorship and whitewashing whole sections of articles that does not paint the Malaysian government in a good light as seen in other articles. Already deletion of the article was declined by a administrator in the first place - [[16]], thus making this individual continues to abuse the system by making repeated postings of template deletions. Roman888 (talk) 05:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Your personal attacks are quite inappropriate. Please refrain from this kind of behavior. Monkeyassault (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Understand this, you also have a history of deleting whole sections of articles that do not paint the Malaysian government in a good light. And you also have a history of repetitively posting deletion templates which to me is waste of time and resources. The first request to delete the article was denied and yet you persist with this behaviour. I have talk to numerous individuals who have agreed with my assessment.Roman888 (talk) 08:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC) The article was declined for speedy deletion. The admin who declined mentioned the possibility of bringing this to AfD as is the standard practice. Nothing nefarious has happened here. If you have issues with any of my edits we can discuss them on the appropriate talk pages on their merits. Personal attacks are not acceptable. Monkeyassault (talk) 09:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Funny, since you also have a history of making personal attacks. I take issue with editors who continually disrupt, delete and destroy whole sections of articles. Furthermore I don't see any consensus being made with discussing any issues with you, because of your past behaviour. This discussion for deleting the articles will go no where, is my case in point. Roman888 (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Keep, possibly speedy, deletion rationale does not apply. IMHO this nomination is on the brink of disruptiveness. Could both parties nevertheless keep their cool in this discussion, please? --Pgallert (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Keep Just being an article on "scandals" isn't POV. There's clearly enough here for a topic and it is well sourced.--Mkativerata (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Merge with the articles about the branches of the military they relate to, especially Military of Malaysia. This is clearly a subtopic of that, and seems a bit too much like a collection of information. I previously moved a section about the missing jet engines from the Najib Tun Razak page to the Royal Malaysian Air Force page and can see the same happening here with the rest of it. I'm also not sure why it contains a link to Murder of Shaariibuugiin Altantuyaa either. This doesn't seem to belong at all, so I can see why Monkeyassault thinks it is intentionally POV. Also, "scandal" is a known word to avoid, so if it does stay it needs a less POV name. --Spinosaurus aegyptiacus (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC) The section in the Military of Malaysia article has less information that that of the Malaysian Military Scandal article. They do not cover the issues about the Sukhoi, submarines and patrol boat articles. The link to the murder is pertinent to the case, and only covers one part of the article. If you read correctly the words to avoid can be used provided there are facts or media references to back it up. Go and read it before you make any more of these comments. Roman888 (talk) 08:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Keep Adequately sourced about notable events. ¨¨ victor falk 08:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Delete and merge anything useful into related article - gives undo weight to subject by being stand alone as most of the events are not related. MilborneOne (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Delete This is a grab bag of incidents with no common theme (other than misbehavior in Malaysian military purchasing and assets management). While the incidents have notability and definitely belong somewhere on Wikipedia, lumping them together like this isn't really appropriate. I'd suggest that this be userfied or sent to the article incubator rather than be deleted outright so that the content can be reused. Nick-D (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Delete or merge with military of Malaysia. Qajar (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Merge to Military of Malaysia. All notable, but this POV spin is not the right way to present it. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. Malaysian Military Scandals 7 of 13 Google News 0 Books 0 Scholar 0 Editor Count: 4 Creator: Roman888 Nominator: Monkeyassault Wifione 3 (3/0) 2010-01-21 Malik Shabazz 1 (1/0) 2010-01-21 The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Julien Abbott Julien Abbott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Appears to be non-notable. Only nine google hits for search ' "Julien Abbott" power racer', and (apart from this page) only one of these appears to be relevant. Google has no hits to verify the information currently in this article.  -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 01:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Delete as nominator. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 01:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Comment: The only internet source I can find that could possibly be referring to this person on google is this link which seems to be selling some power racing memorabilia signed by one "Julien Abbott". This suggests to me that this article is not a hoax, but that this is the only source around suggests to me that WP:SIGCOV is not satisfied by the subject of this article. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 01:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Delete: unsourced BLP. I am also unable to find anything to satisfy myself that this passes WP:GNG. Turgan Talk 02:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Delete. Unsourced BLP for instantaneous deletion. JBsupreme (talk) 07:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. Julien Abbott 8 of 13 Google News 1 Books 0 Scholar 0 Editor Count: 9 Creator: Jha196 Nominator: Lear's Fool Miyagawa 2 (1/1) 2010-01-08 94.30.34.8 1 (1/0) 2010-01-08 Malcolma 1 (0/1) 2010-01-12 Dr. Blofeld 1 (1/0) 2010-01-25 OliverTwisted 1 (0/1) 2010-01-08 Katharineamy 1 (1/0) 2010-01-12 Beeblebrox 1 (1/0) 2010-01-25 The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Natalie Zfat Natalie Zfat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Bringing this to AfD as a PROD is likely to be contested. No real notability established. Seems to be an attempt at self-promotion. Nymf talk/contr. 01:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Neutral at this point, leaning toward Delete. All the sources in the article currently are first party sources, and there seems to be a lack of significant coverage in independant, reliable sources. As such, as I currently see it, it fails the General Notability Guideline. However, if someone can produce some independant, reliable sources to establish notability, I'll consider a keep vote. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 01:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Changing to Delete: After searching through the references, including those recently added by the primary author, and searching through google results, I can find nothing to indicate significant coverage of the subject of the article. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 00:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Delete: fails WP:GNG from what ;ittle I can't find. Turgan Talk 02:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Keep: Primary author has added independent references 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 15. Poisonivyjones (talk) 04:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Strong Delete simply penning articles about famous people does not make you notable. coverage has to be about the article subject to be considered in depth coverage. no in depth coverage [17] LibStar (talk) 05:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Delete. This is a common mistake people make here. If I write up a bunch of articles about famous people, that does not, in turn, make me famous. JBsupreme (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Delete seems to also have issue with WP:COI, Jeepday (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. Natalie Zfat 9 of 13 Google News 1 Books 0 Scholar 0 Editor Count: 8 Creator: Poisonivyjones Nominator: Nymf Rich Farmbrough 1 (0/1) 2009-10-14 Tassedethe 1 (0/1) 2009-11-13 RussBot (bot) 1 (0/1) 2009-10-09 Malcolma 1 (0/1) 2009-10-14 Jevansen 1 (1/0) 2010-01-01 Eastmain 1 (1/0) 2010-01-27 The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC) IRCjr IRCjr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Delete. Freeware application which fails GNG. JBsupreme (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 03:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Delete per Joe. smithers - talk 04:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Delete per above. Armbrust Talk Contribs 08:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Delete If Joe doesn't find it notable, I will not either. Trusting his judgment. Miami33139 (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. IRCjr 10 of 13 Google News 7 Books 167 Scholar 15 Editor Count: 7 Creator: Mbbrutman Nominator: JBsupreme Tothwolf 6 (5/1) 2009-05-20 Mabdul 3 (3/0) 2009-04-24 Vertigo Acid 1 (1/0) 2009-10-30 Alexrexpvt 1 (0/1) 2009-05-15 SmackBot (bot) 1 (0/1) 2009-11-01 The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC) GT85 GT85 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) A non-notable product. Wikipedia shouldn't list every type of penetrating oil on the market. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unilease for a similar AfD. Wizard191 (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Delete without prejudice as we recently did for Unilease. If there is nothing in the way of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications then we should not be hosting this. JBsupreme (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Delete Primary sources are not sufficient, no sign of notability. 23:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. GT85 11 of 13 Google News 32 Books 158 Scholar 85 Editor Count: 13 Creator: Ajuk Nominator: Wizard191 Freakofnurture 1 (1/0) 2006-10-20 SmackBot (bot) 1 (0/1) 2007-02-11 Beetstra 1 (1/0) 2007-04-10 Katalaveno 1 (0/1) 2008-04-10 Johnnieblue 1 (1/0) 2009-02-23 Smashville 1 (1/0) 2010-01-11 Rrburke 1 (1/0) 2006-10-20 Anskas 1 (1/0) 2006-10-23 Wikipediatastic 1 (1/0) 2007-02-14 142.165.160.74 1 (1/0) 2008-04-10 81.145.145.71 1 (1/0) 2009-02-16 The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Infobot Infobot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Delete. Non-notable software script which fails GNG. JBsupreme (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC) <infobot> huh? 10:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 03:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Keep. This article would appear to already contain valid book references, and seems to have some claim to actual historical significance as Internet incunabula. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Keep article contains multiple independent and reliable sources which clearly reach notability. LotLE×talk That is categorically false. The article has two citations and this article does not "clearly reach notability" by a mile. JBsupreme (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Keep, several references seems notable Jeepday (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Really? I only see two references cited in this article, both of which refer to a fork of Infobot ("blootbot") and neither of which really meet the definition of non-trivial. Oh, and the second reference is just a sourceforge link, so its not really a third party reference at all. [18] I have to ask, what are you talking about? JBsupreme (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC) References do not have to be inline per WP:CITE#General reference. You forgot to mention the two books given in the article. The inline refs are only for the blootbot fork. The rest of the article is supported by: “ General references Paul Mutton, IRC hacks, O'Reilly Media, 2004, ISBN 059600687X, pp. 159-164 Kevin Lenzo, Infobots and Purl, chapter 13 in Jon Orwant, Games, diversions, and Perl culture: best of the Perl journal, O'Reilly Media, 2003, ISBN 0596003129, pp. 115-125 ” Keep, part of IRC culture that lives on to this day. purl is on practically every channel on irc.perl.org with more than three people and has been an institution for years (though she's now a flooterbuck, it's nice to document her history). 76.98.130.178 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC). The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. Infobot 12 of 13 Google News 75 Books 184 Scholar 106 Editor Count: 35 Creator: TimRiker Nominator: JBsupreme SimonRaven 6 (3/3) 2008-05-12 Tothwolf 6 (2/4) 2009-02-25 Ods15 2 (1/1) 2005-01-20 Oznux 2 (2/0) 2007-09-07 Miami33139 2 (1/1) 2009-12-20 CQ 2 (0/2) 2005-08-17 DMacks 2 (2/0) 2007-09-07 Fred J 1 (1/0) 2005-06-28 Bluebot 1 (0/1) 2005-11-11 CmdrObot (bot) 1 (0/1) 2006-10-30 Gwern 1 (0/1) 2006-12-13 160.109.98.44 1 (1/0) 2007-05-15 82.101.184.173 1 (1/0) 2007-05-27 Gurch 1 (0/1) 2007-10-26 Frap 1 (1/0) 2008-04-24 Arbitrarily0 1 (1/0) 2008-08-19 Kimchi.sg 1 (1/0) 2008-08-20 Jeff02 1 (0/1) 2008-12-13 Galoubet 1 (0/1) 2009-02-11 Jeandré du Toit 1 (0/1) 2004-10-29 24.1.104.25 1 (1/0) 2005-02-27 Marudubshinki 1 (0/1) 2006-06-11 Sbp 1 (0/1) 2006-12-10 Joy 1 (0/1) 2007-05-23 Snaxe920 1 (0/1) 2007-07-19 SmackBot (bot) 1 (0/1) 2007-10-13 Pxma 1 (0/1) 2007-11-13 Free Software Knight 1 (1/0) 2008-05-07 Cydebot (bot) 1 (0/1) 2008-06-21 Coopkev2 1 (0/1) 2008-08-19 Gioto 1 (0/1) 2008-11-19 ChenzwBot (bot) 1 (0/1) 2009-04-13 Pohta ce-am pohtit 1 (1/0) 2009-12-27 The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. NW (Talk) 18:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Bip IRC Proxy AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Bip IRC Proxy Articles for deletion/Bip IRC Proxy (2nd nomination) Bip IRC Proxy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) DELETE PER WP:BIP... just kidding. This was nominated roughly four months ago with a no consensus result. Some people asserted that a blog article was sufficient for sourcing. I contend that it is not and would like to bring this before the community once again to see if we can finally achieve consensus on this, one way or the other. JBsupreme (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Delete: Per my comment in the first AfD and the fact that the sources were blogs. Joe Chill (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 03:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Delete. WP:GNG - it's not really notable, and a blog post is not WP:RS, despite popularity. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Delete as it fails WP:N and WP:RS. Armbrust Talk Contribs 08:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Keep. Apart from the listed 3rd party sources, I can find a few others: [19]; [20]; [21]; [22]; etc. LotLE×talk 19:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Blogs and forums aren't reliable sources. Armbrust Talk Contribs 10:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. Bip IRC Proxy (2nd nomination) 13 of 13 Google News 0 Books 0 Scholar 0 Editor Count: 18 Creator: DannFrazier Nominator: Miami33139 Tothwolf 6 (3/3) 2009-02-25 Addbot (bot) 2 (0/2) 2009-02-25 Mokhov 2 (2/0) 2009-10-02 JBsupreme 2 (2/0) 2010-01-27 84.230.72.60 1 (1/0) 2007-08-20 Frap 1 (1/0) 2008-04-24 LesOrchard 1 (0/1) 2008-05-06 88.165.244.236 1 (1/0) 2008-09-13 80.227.106.6 1 (1/0) 2009-09-27 Rich Farmbrough 1 (0/1) 2009-12-20 Joy 1 (0/1) 2007-05-23 ThomasPetazzoni 1 (1/0) 2008-01-09 71.142.242.1 1 (1/0) 2008-04-27 Cydebot (bot) 1 (0/1) 2008-06-21 71.142.252.153 1 (1/0) 2008-11-07 MuZemike 1 (1/0) 2009-10-10