From Global Warming Art

The following page is a local copy of the Wikipedia page at Wikipedia:Deletion today. (more info)

Deletion discussions

Deletion today AfD yesterday Articles (by category) Templates Files Categories (active) Stub types Redirects Miscellany Undeletion Deletion review
Wikipedia deletion policy
Deletion policy Proposed deletion Criteria for speedy deletion Undeletion policy
Tools
Process – Log – Guide – Images – Admins

This page transcludes (or when this is not feasible, links to) all of the deletion debates opened today on the English-language Wikipedia, including articles, categories, templates, and others, as a convenience to XfD-watchers. Please note that because this material is transcluded, watchlisting this page will not provide you with watchlist updates about deletions; WP:DELT works best as a browser bookmark checked regularly.

1 Speedy deletion candidates
2 Articles
3 Categories
- 3.1 November 16
4 Redirects
- 4.1 November 16
  - 4.1.1 Famous authors and their autobiography/biographys
  - 4.1.2 List of extinct animals of the British Isles
5 Templates
- 5.1 November 16
  - 5.1.1 Template:Stubclass
  - 5.1.2 Template:Kevin Lima
6 Stub types
7 Miscellany (WikiProjects, user pages, etc.)
8 Deletion review
- 8.1 16 November 2009
  - 8.1.1 Andrew Storms and Tim D. Keanini

Speedy deletion candidates

The category is at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion.

Articles

< 15 November	17 November >

Guide to deletion

Centralized discussion

Proposals	Discussions	Recurring proposals
Proposal to improve infobox template coherence across Wikipedia and achieve consensus Discussion on promoting Wikipedia:Notability (news events) to guideline status Discussion regarding the "Wikipedia Forever" fundraising banner. Proposal to modify SecurePoll for the upcoming ArbCom election. Discussion on promoting Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) to guideline status Discussion on the number, term lengths, and method of selecting members of the Arbitration Committee Discussion on defaulting no consensus to delete for biographies of living persons Discussion on several proposed administrator recall processes. Proposal to add userfication (admins)/incubation(everyone) to Twinkle, and deal with related issues on userfication. Discussion on how to move forward on paid editing guideline/policy in light of the recent RfC on the issue. Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
archive • talk • edit • history • watch

Purge server cache

Maurice Toshan Gunness

(Find sources: "Maurice Toshan Gunness" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Nominator's rationale: I can find no evidence that he ever played professionally per WP:ATHLETE. Or WP:RS indicating that he satisfies the most basic requirements WP:NOT#BIO. I cannot verify his award for "most improved player" at Yeading FC; not verified by my Google search. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)</smal

Safek Brakha Daoraita

(Find sources: "Safek Brakha Daoraita" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

Social matchmaking

(Find sources: "Social matchmaking" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

Learning Streams

(Find sources: "Learning Streams" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

List of schools in Harris County, Texas

(Find sources: "List of schools in Harris County, Texas" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

Peregrine (U.S. band)

(Find sources: "Peregrine (U.S. band)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Guerrilla phase of the Second Chechen War

(Find sources: "Guerrilla phase of the Second Chechen War" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

This is a self-declared incomplete list of links. Basically, it's a synthesized original research under a questionable title, containing no actual content whatsoever. It might as well have been a copy of the table of contents from the Second Chechen War article; the effect is the same.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:50, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Burn This City (Sonic Syndicate song)

(Find sources: "Burn This City (Sonic Syndicate song)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Krugman's Law

(Find sources: "Krugman's Law" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

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

Zombie credit

(Find sources: "Zombie credit" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

Delete Still a long way from an encyclopedia topic. Borock (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Mariam Makhniashvili

(Find sources: "Mariam Makhniashvili" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Contested PROD (I was the PROD-er.) Article is about a missing high-school student not notable for anything other than disappearing. Per Wikipedia:Notability_(criminal_acts)#Victims, "A victim of a high-profile crime does not automatically qualify as being notable enough to have a stand-alone article solely based on his or her status as a victim...As such, a victim of a crime should normally only be the subject of an article where an article that satisfied notability criteria existed, or could have properly been created prior to the crime's commission." Granted it is not yet known if there was a crime here, but WP:BLP1E still applies, and Makhniashvili simply isn't notable other than the fact that she is currently missing, even though her disappearance has generated a lot of local media coverage. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Kuo Yuan

(Find sources: "Kuo Yuan" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Not Notable and no references can be found. Grim²³ ★ 18:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Case bidding

(Find sources: "Case bidding" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

Close To You (JLS song)

(Find sources: "Close To You (JLS song)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

Delete: Breaks WP:Crystal guideline. Grim²³ ★ 19:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Look For Me (Chipmunk song)

(Find sources: "Look For Me (Chipmunk song)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

no context, fails notability and WP:Crystal Alan - talk 17:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Mahatma Letters

(Find sources: "Mahatma Letters" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

This is a content fork of Ascended master and should be merged back or deleted as a fairly trivial definition of words (particularly considering the extensive definition of Mahātmā). Wikipedia does not benefit by having every possible variation of words or neologism anyone applied to the subject of Theosophy over the last 130 years becoming separate articles. —Ash (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

John Catheline

(Find sources: "John Catheline" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

Delete: While I managed to find one news item [1], I really don't think there's enough coverage to meet notability standards. Someone else's opinion might differ but that's mine. Pigman☿/talk 18:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Feald

(Find sources: "Feald" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete Absolutely no coverage in reliable sources. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Fastream IQ Proxy Server

(Find sources: "Fastream IQ Proxy Server" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete, unambiguous advertising: Used by thousands of clients worldwide, features Upload/download bandwidth limits on both content/reverse proxies; port-wide and per-connection limiting and IP/domain/country-based firewall as a tighter security measure as well as connections-per-client-IP limiting on both content/reverse proxies. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Lucid Desktop

(Find sources: "Lucid Desktop" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

unimportant web product sourced to self-published sources and press release reprints. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

White to Play

(Find sources: "White to Play" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

File Access Manager

(Find sources: "File Access Manager" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

Keep - per WP:BEFORE, WP:N. A simple Google search reveals one third of a million (not a typo) Ghits: [2], and dozens on Google scholar: [3] as well as Google Books: [4]. Alternately, merge into File locking or Microsoft software. Bearian (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Don't point me to WP:BEFORE when I searched for sources before the nomination. Google hits do not show notability. I would never have expected to see a !vote from an admin based on Google hits. Joe Chill (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  - WP:Before is a much abused slight. Don't devalue it for when it's actually needed. I have no doubt that Joe did due diligence before nominating. Shadowjams (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Google search: Download sites. Google News and Google Books: Doesn't even mention this software. So why do you want this kept? Joe Chill (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  - Sorry, no slight or offense intended. Normally, I don't use the Google test by itself, but in all that smoke, there must be some fire. If not kept, as I stated before, please merge the content into the other software articles, as the information itself is useful. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete - Not notable as a proper noun. Shadowjams (talk) 08:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

WorkXpress

(Find sources: "WorkXpress" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Advertising article about a non-notable business. The "references" supplied look impressive; what they show is that some would-be advertisers have become more adept at gaming the system, and that hardly any of them have this business as a major subject. Google News coverage shows one local paper interview with the CEO; other mentions are trivial, non-substantial, and in passing. The attempt to claim minimal importance is rather amusing, but this local award fails the business notability guideline:

earned the Fab 5 award in 2006, which was presented by the Harrisburg Regional Chamber and CREDC.[5] The Fab 5 was a competition to find the "Top 5" companies in the region who had been in business two to five years and were headquartered in Cumberland, Dauphin or Perry counties Pennsylvania.

This has already been deleted three times as making an insufficient claim of importance, or as obvious advertising[5]; taking this to AfD to establish a precedent for protection against re-creation. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Abstain - I took exception to this article, tagging and/or prodding it a while back, and chastised them for abusing Wikipedia. They seemed genuine (if not necessarily verifiably notable) so I spent some time helping them to improve the quality of the article. I'm sitting on the fence for this one but just wanted to give you the background - they're not your average wikispammer. -- samj _in^out 10:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I am a founder of WorkXpress, and I appreciate your goals and efforts in regard to keeping Wikipedia free of blatant advertising. Please allow me to make a couple of comments. First, it is true we have been deleted on several occasions, however, each time we have made an effort to understand the cause, and to rectify the cause with facts and evidence. The truth of the matter is that WorkXpress meets the requirements for listing on Wikipedia as we have grown in our understanding of them. For example, WorkXpress is notable; it is at the forefront of a significant shift in technology known as Cloud Computing, and has been recognized by analyst firms like Gartner, Forrester and the 451 Group as such. Second, this notability is verifiable; there have been numerous secondary source articles on WorkXpress, multiple awards and wide range of other validations. Our vision is to make all aspects of business software deployment ranging from development to systems administration even to marketing accessible to the ordinary IT worker, and to empower them to do incredible things. Please, give us the opportunity to provide the supporting documentation that you need prior to deleting this article...we are happy to do so. In conclusion, I believe that what WorkXpress is doing belongs on Wikipedia, not as an advertisement, but as an important part of the emerging historical story of Cloud Computing. This history is still young, and I hope that you can consider the fact that its still being written; albeit with the help of smaller, innovative firms like WorkXpress. Firms like WorkXpress have a part in this story just as important as the Microsofts, Google's and Salesforces of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.62.205 (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - thank you for your response. I am probably the wrong person to address the claim that your business "is at the forefront of a significant shift in technology known as Cloud Computing" to. At any rate, I would expect that claim to be verified in sources; I looked, and I'm afraid I found very little there. The deletion template more or less automates the process of looking; you will find what I found.

Investment analyst firms like Gartner and Forrester generally do not confer notability unless their reports are made available to the general public. Their clients are their "editors", and while I hope their facts are reliable, most of their work is circulated only to paying customers, which makes them of "limited interest and circulation", and as such unhelpful to establish notability. The same is true of local and trade publication coverage, which I mentioned I did find when I looked.

Ultimately, what you need to show is that your firm has the kind of historical importance that makes it, out of all its rivals, a subject that belongs in a general coverage encyclopedia. I nominated your firm at the same time I did a number of similar articles about small tech firms, in part because I want to see the inclusion policies applied even-handedly. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment - According to its founder, Wikipedia's goal is to contain "the sum of all human knowledge", not a "general coverage encyclopedia". Regardless, there have been numerous articles meeting the requirements of a regional secondary source, numerous national/international reviews, etc, and they are listed. The guideline clearly states that "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability", and certainly WorkXpress has received plenty of evidenced regional media attention. Further, the guideline states that Notability in general "means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." ", which again, is well evidenced. I think if you give an article like this the benefit of the doubt, in 6-12 months time the answer will present itself...either the company will grow, or it will fail. Is it such a difficult thing to include this article into "the sum of all human knowledge" during the formative years of an entirely new industry (cloud computing), especially given the fact that a reasonable argument can be made for notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.62.205 (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Just a quick note: a link to the public portion ("...generally do not confer notability unless their reports are made available to the public", as per Smerdis of Tlon above) of the article by Gartner entitled "Whose who in Application Platforms for Cloud Computing" and other regional press has been added to the article. Just like many other news agencies, Gartner does collect money from its readers. However also like a news agency, its role is as a trusted advisor on new technologies and trends; if its advice is not accurate and factual, CIO's will not pay for future analysis - but yet they do. WorkXpress to date has never had a financial relationship with Gartner; Gartner analysts chose to include WorkXpress in this report on its merits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.62.205 (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect. Redirected by nominator- Non-admin closure by Sodam Yat

Doctor who (series 5)

(Find sources: "Doctor who (series 5)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nom. Sorry, did sloppy research. - Altenmann >t 18:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

María del Carmen Martínez-Bordiú y Franco

(Find sources: "María del Carmen Martínez-Bordiú y Franco" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

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

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.

Metaphysical fantasy

(Find sources: "Metaphysical fantasy" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

This genre is a new genre, but seems also to be a non-notable term. The article itself cites no sources for discussion about this genre. Though Amazon has a tag on this genre, it seems not recognised and discussed anywhere. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Crash of the Titans 3

(Find sources: "Crash of the Titans 3" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Definitely peering into the crystal ball here. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Interactions concerning social groups of people in Canada and the US

(Find sources: "Interactions concerning social groups of people in Canada and the US" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

Move to another wiki. Article seems to be a combination of synthesis and a how to guide on proper etiquette. Not really appropriate for an encyclopedia but might be better elsewhere, like Wikibooks. Loves Macs (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Rahim Abdul bin Kajaran

(Find sources: "Rahim Abdul bin Kajaran" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

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

Find sources: "United Democratic Movement Brunei" — search, news, books, scholar, images
Find sources: "Parti Persatuan Gerakan Demokratic Brunei" — search, news, books, scholar, images

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

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

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

Fashionpop

(Find sources: "Fashionpop" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

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

Steel Guiliana

(Find sources: "Steel Guiliana" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

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

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

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

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

Lagarith

(Find sources: "Lagarith" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

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

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

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

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

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

REPOhistory

(Find sources: "REPOhistory" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

No assertion of notability. Individual members may be notable, but even that is not asserted. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 15:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Gatineau Park Protection Committee

(Find sources: "Gatineau Park Protection Committee" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“I would like to take this opportunity to thank the New Woodlands Preservation League, especially Mr. Andrew MacDermott and Mr. Jean-Paul Murray, for highlighting the role of Mr. Sparks during our various public meetings and our meeting with the NCC Board of Directors. As a result of their comments, we commissioned a study to examine the influence of interest groups and the socio-political context around the Park’s creation.

“Mr. Murray more particularly, was involved and consulted throughout the process and as a result of the study, we are here today to recognize the important role of Roderick Percy Sparks in the establishment of this magnificent national treasure.”

Broadbent Acts on Park, By Mike Caesar, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, November 9—Nov. 15, 2005, p. 3.

Senator pushes to preserve Gatineau Park: Legislation would prevent sale of parts of property By Dave Rogers, Ottawa Citizen, January 17, 2006, p. B2.

Chelsea resident instrumental in Senate bill to protect Gatineau Park By Julie Murray, The West Quebec Post, January 27, 2006, p. 9.

Give NCC more power, chairman says: Beaudry tells review panel agency should have greater say in planning of capital region, By Patrick Dare, Ottawa Citizen, November 10, 2006. p. F1. Mentions McDermott, Murray and NWPL.

NCC Anarchy Lambasted. By Rowan Lomas, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, November 15, 2006, pp.1-2. Mentions Murray, Mc Dermott and the League (and their presentation before the NCC mandate review panel as the NWPL).

Gatineau Park bill passes second reading, by Ian Lordon, Low Down to Hull and Back News, December 20-January 2, 2007, pp. 1-2. Mentions Murray and the League.

Hello election, goodbye Gatineau Park bill, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, April 18-24, 2007, p. 12. Mentions Murray and the League.

Gatineau Park bill ‘gutted’ by Tories, by Ian Lordon, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, July 11-17, 2007, pp. 1-2. Mentions Murray and the League.

Don’t ban Gatineau Park land sales: Cannon Minister says Senate bill ties NCC’s hands; selloffs fly in face of ‘master plan,’ critic says, by William Lin, The Ottawa Citizen, Friday, July 13, 2007, pp. F1 and F7. Mentions Murray and the League.

A5 extension to run through Gatineau Park: activist, by Josh Clipperton, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, Sept.26-Oct.2, 2007, p. 3. Mentions Murray and the League.

Activist wrong, A5 won’t touch Gatineau Park, letters, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, Oct. 10 – Oct. 16, 2007, page 5. Response from Minister Lawrence Cannon to NWPL on Highway 5.

Parkland ownership a puzzler; NCC, federal, Quebec governments bicker over part of Gatineau Park. By Dave Rogers, Ottawa Citizen, January 22, 2008, p. B1. Mentioning Murray in his role as park activist, i.e., as NWPL member.

NCC unaware of Gatineau Park housing plan; Owners have right to build, Chelsea mayor says, By Dave Rogers, Ottawa Citizen, January 25, 2008, p. H1. Mentioning Murray in his role as park activist, i.e., as NWPL member.

This land is your land, this land is our land, from Lac La Peche, to Hull’s French CEGEP: NCC, activist in dispute over who owns Park land, By Rachel Dares, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, Jan. 30-Feb. 5, 2008, p. 1-19. Mentioning Murray and NWPL.

NCC unaware of Gatineau Park development. By Rachel Dares, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, Jan. 30-Feb. 5, 2008, p. 3. Mentioning Murray and NWPL.

Gatineau Park boundaries laid out in Bill S-227. By Rachel Dares, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, March 5-11, 2008, p. 2. Mentioning Murray in his role as park activist, i.e., as NWPL member.

Gatineau Park supporters lobby minister to step in, By Dave Rogers, The Ottawa Citizen, March 7, 2008, p. F3. Mentioning Murray as member of the Gatineau Park Protection Coalition, i.e., as NWPL member.

Bill to boost park’s status urged, By Laura Czekaj, The Ottawa Sun, April 3, 2008, p. 21. Mentioning Murray as member of the Gatineau Park Protection Coalition, i.e., as NWPL member.

Gatineau Park plea rattles NCC meeting, By Katie Daubs, Ottawa Citizen, April 5, 2008, p. D-1. About a speech Murray made as NWPL president before the NCC board. “Everything was going according to plan until Jean-Paul Murray got up to speak… It was Thursday night, and interest groups were having their annual chance to make a presentation to the National Capital Commission’s board of directors. .. The meeting had the air of a Toastmasters session as each presentation was timed with a red light… Then Mr. Murray got up to speak. When he finished his five-minute plea to stop private development in Gatineau Park, the Panorama Room at the National Arts Centre erupted in applause.“

Mobilisation à Chelsea. Le Droit, 8 avril 2008, p. 4. About Murray and the League.

Gatineau Park group calls for development freeze. CBC Radio Ottawa. April 8, 2008. Mentioning Murray as member of the Gatineau Park Protection Coalition, i.e., as NWPL member. “Jean-Paul Murray of the Gatineau Park Protection Coalition told the meeting that the National Capital Commission should enact a law forbidding any development in the park.”

Gatineau Park is like “Swiss cheese”: private landowner. By Rachel Dares, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, April 9-April 15, 2008, p. 3. Mentioning Murray and NWPL.

Group argues for legal protection of Gatineau Park. By Patrick Dare, The Ottawa Citizen, April 22, 2008, p. D3. Mentioning Murray and NWPL.

NCC buys former Carman Trails site to stop development. By Rachel Dares, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, May 28-June 3, 2008, p. 7. Mentioning Murray as member of the Gatineau Park Protection Coalition, i.e., as NWPL member.

Gatineau Park would cost ‘significantly more’ as national park. Monday, July 28, 2008, CBC News. Interview with Murray as park activist, i.e., as NWPL member.

Parc de la Gatineau, Le Téléjournal de Radi-Canada (Ottawa), le 28 juillet 2008. TV interview with GPPC member Jean-Paul Murray over the mudding of Meech Lake.

Too much Meech mud . By Laura Czekaj, The Ottawa Sun, July 29, 2008, p. 4. (Also broadcast on the Canadian Press News Wire and picked up by the North Bay Nugget). Quotes Coalition member Murray, ergo as member of NWPL.

Federal investigation launched into environmental damage at Meech Lake, CPW, July 29, 2008 (Published in the North Bay Nugget, July 29, p. A4, with title: “Feds investigate Meech Lake damage: Lake treated like ‘garbage’ can – coalition”). Quotes Coalition member Murray, ergo as member of NWPL.

Group fears new homes are muddying Meech, By Jean-François Bertrand, The Ottawa Citizen, July 29, 2008, p. C-1. Quotes Coalition member Murray, ergo as member of NWPL.

“‘On paper’ group says it does heavy lifting to protect park: another Gatineau Park Senate bill tabled,” by Cynthia Vukets, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, Feb. 11-Feb.17, 2009, p. 7. Profiles NWPL.

NCC, Quebec in tax fight: Bickering over who should pay property taxes on CEGEP, Lac la Pêche land, by Laura Czekaj, Ottawa Sun, March 17, 2008, p.14. Quotes Murray as GPPC co-chair.

“Quebec drops tax fight with NCC: Resolution reached over payments for land bordering Gatineau Park,” by John Willing, the Ottawa Sun, March 21, 2009. Quotes McDermott as GPPC co-chair.

“Watchdog claims victory in spat over portion of Gatineau Park: Disputed land at CÉGEP belongs to province,” by Laura Payton, The Ottawa Citizen, March 22, 2009, p. A5. Quotes McDermott as GPPC co-chair.

Fin d’une longue dispute, Radio rock détente, Gatineau, le 23 mars 2009 Source : Info Astral Media

« La fin d'un méli-mélo au lac La Pêche», par Charles Thériault, Le Droit, le 28 mars 2009, p. 22.

“Ottawa MP tables motion to protect Gatineau Park,” The Low Down to Hull and Back News, April 29-May 5, 2009, p. 5.

“Surprising moves,” by Nikki Mantell, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, May 13-19, 2009, p. 4. Mentions Murray and League.

“Manitoba senator emerges as saviour of Gatineau Park: Mira Spivak fighting to give Crown jewel federal protection,” by Dave Rogers, The Ottawa Citizen, May 18, 2009, pp. A1

Gatineau Park bill draws flak,” by Laura Czekaj, Ottawa Sun, June 10, 2009. Quotes GPPC co-chair McDermott.

Un « pas dans la bonne direction », par Patrice Gaudreault, Le Droit, le 10 juin 2009.

La Commission St-Onge, le mardi 9 juin 2009, Tag Radio X, 96,5, Gatineau, entrevue, 12h14-12h20. Radio interview with Jean-Paul Murray as co-chair of GPPC.

“All in a Day,” CBC Radio Ottawa, 91.5 FM, June 9, 2009 “Gatineau Park.” Interview between Adrian Harewood and Gilles Paquet, NCC Mandate Review chair. Jean-Paul Murray quoted as co-chair of GPPC.

“Cannon’s Park Gatineau Park Bill Controversial,” by Julie Murray, The West Quebec Post, June 12-18, 2009, p. 1. Names Murray and McDermott as GPPC co-chairs.

“Meech Lake boat ban earns praise,” Ottawa Sun, Sunday, July 12, 2009 (also on Sherbrooke Record’s Web site). Talks about GPPC praising NCC policy.

« Moins de bateaux motorisés sur le lac Meech : La CCN entend mieux protéger les écosystèmes du parc de la Gatineau », par François Pierre Dufault, Le Droit, le 13 juillet 2009, p.5.

« Moins de bateaux sur le Lac Meech », Radio énergie, 104,1, Gatineau, le lundi 13 juillet 2009 (aussi diffusé sur les ondes de 94,9, Rockdétente).

“NCC motorboat restriction earns park protectors’ praise,” by Trevor Greenway, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, July 15-July 21, 2009, p. 10.

“Harper, Charest announce Highway 5 extension to Wakefield,” by Dave Rogers, The Ottawa Citizen, August 15, 2009. Quotes McDermott as co-chair of GPPC.

« Projet de loi C-37 portant sur l’avenir du parc de la Gatineau: les groupes écolos promettent de réagir », par Philippe Orfali, le Droit, le 25 août 2009. Half-page article about the GPPC and its paper on Bill C-37.

“New house in park has protectors crying foul,” by Mark Burgess, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, September 2-8, 2009, p. 3. About GPPC.

“Home goes up inside Gatineau Park,” by Lily Ryan, The West Quebec Post, September 4-10, 2009, p. 3. About GPPC.

“NCC blamed for failing to protect Gatineau Park,” by Dave Rogers, The Ottawa Citizen, September 4, 2009 p. B3. Featuring Murray breaking the news of another Master plan violation and construction inside the park.

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

Steve Sap

(Find sources: "Steve Sap" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Woodlands Preservation League

(Find sources: "New Woodlands Preservation League" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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