Talk:Astrology software

message: This article has some inaccuracies and heavy biases. For example, the programs in 1977 were not "complete programs" and generally did one or two calculations. It was not until I joined Matrix in 1981 tha all purpose programs were available. Claims regarding what company is the largest, etc. are undocumented and may not be true. I am an astrology software developer and it not appropriate for any astrology software developer to be contributing to this article so I have not edited the article. We need an objective panel to interview contributors to satrology software and do some research into the field and to assemble a much more objective and reastlistic history of astrology and computers. Right now this article has too much advertising hype and not enough scholarly research. DavidCochrane 15:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the statement that developers of astrology software should not contribute to this article. There is ample precedent for this disagreement. Many articles about operating systems, programs, computing standards, and so forth, have benefited irreplaceably by engineers who are uniquely knowledgeable precisely because they participated in their development, and would be astonished and upset if they were told that their expertise was ruled out. Other means are available to exclude commercial conflict of interest. (And IMO the distinction between WP:COI and WP:OWN is being lost in much of this discussion, which risks devolving into a pissing contest.)Bn (talk) 05:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Development

message: There is no copyright violation because although I did not create this page, I added most of the content as a public service five years ago, from my knowledge as an insider with over 40 years of experience with astrology.  Other contributors have tweaked the content of the page, but the bulk of the information has stood unchanged for five years.  If an external page has this text, then they clearly copied it from Wikipedia, not vice-versa.  Do not let a person biased against astrology destroy a page that is providing a public service.
John Halloran (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. I'm afraid that you were given the incorrect template; this page is not nominated for speedy deletion. The copyright concerns will be carefully evaluated before any action is taken against the article. Wikipedia is widely mirrored and I suspect that in this case the external site is using your content without credit, but unfortunately some of the easy markers I look for to confirm that are absent here. Please be patient with the process, and I will attempt to get to the bottom of it as swiftly as possible. However, while Verbal may be wrong in this case, please don't presume that he has a bias against the content unless there is further evidence of that. Wikipedia does encourage its contributors to take copyright concerns seriously, to protect the project, its reusers and the copyright holders. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You can tell that the external page recently copied the Wikipedia page because their copy includes these lines added by Walter Pullen, AKA Cruiser1 on July 12, 2007: "Similarly, astrologers on the internet sought an astrological calculation program that would work on Unix systems. This demand was met by the open source software program Astrolog, first posted to Usenet in 1991."  Therefore, the page's 2005-2010 copyright notice is bogus.  Not to mention that the www.co.cc domain service is not mentioned in any news archive before the year 2010.John Halloran (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. That's very helpful. :) I consulted with a colleague before shutting off last night (here), and he notes that dates added in 2009 here are also included in the external site. I'd say that those two facts are definitive. I'll clear the copyright listing at WP:CP, restore the article, and put a note at the top of this page to help prevent this recurring with this source. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright

message: Three sections and most or all of their content were removed with neither explanation or justification:
# History
# Calculation Features
# Interpretation Reports
After improving the content with citations and editing, I restored the deleted sections. I could give detailed citations of all the ephemerides and books of tables published by ACS, but that hardly seems motivated and would overweight the references with repetitive information.
The History section is a summary of developments, drawing on a book by Professor Lewis. The citation of that book was missing; I have added it.
The 'Computation Features' section briefly describes the operations and computing products typical of these programs. I have added citations of two books on the subject.
These sections and their improved content have again been deleted. The only comment from Verbal about that change was a request that I discuss the changes here. Since those sections were previously deleted without discussion here, with all due respect I submit that this principle cuts both ways. Please discuss here the reasons for the original deletion. 
Within the History section, a new paragraph about one of the early contributors to the historical development, Para Research, Inc., was deleted without explanation. The edit comment by Verbal (timestamp 06:20, 30 June 2010 characterized changes as "copyedit, restore tags, remove poorly sourced/unsourced (google searches, non-RS books)". There has been no response to my request for the justification for this deletion. (See my request 14:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't provided any WP:RS for the material you are seeking to add. In addition, some of it is of dubious relevance (such as the entire Interpretation Reports section) or just plain poorly sourced. Verbal chat 20:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You say that the section on interpretive text is 'of dubious relevance' to the topic of computers and astrology. This judgment is uninformed. Astrology is astronomy plus interpretation. I do not want to make any guess as to personal philosophies, but as a notable parallel Scientistic judgment, e.g. by adherents of SCICOP), rejects the interpretive side, but that is controversial and clearly does not make it irrelevant to this topic. It is a simple and manifest fact that astrological software is of two kinds: those that do the astronomical calculations and present the results in astrological form; and those that do this and in addition assemble interpretive text.Bn (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

text: You say that the reason that you deleted a section of content is that it does not provide what in your judgment are reliable sources. That is a reason for flagging the text as needing reliable sources. It is no justification for deleting it. [Oops! omitted the signature.]Bn (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Further, judgment as to what sources are reliable may call for some familiarity with the field. Taking just the first such flag on this topic, the claim seems to be that a company that has been in business for 40 years is not a reliable source for information about its origins. Every company that I have worked for has included at the end of its press releases a statement of its origin and its mission, and this statement is commonly picked up verbatim in the press, and also appears on its website. By this standard, a secondary quotation from the press is reliable, but a quotation from the company's own material is not.Bn (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Particularly dubious-appearing are the Astrocom claims that are sourced to its own web site. If you could provide a secondary source (such as the book by Professor Lewis, or other relevant text) for those claims, it would go a long way to address these problems. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note for just one example the many citations of IBM internal archives, closely analogous to the ACS page about the founding of that company. See e.g. refs 40, 44-46, 49, 50, 53-59 and many others.Bn (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

text: All serious astrologers and astrology software programmers pay homage to the late Neil Franklin Michelsen, born May 11, 1931, in Chicago, founder and inspiration behind Astro Computing Services (ACS) and ACS Publications.  His biography appears on page 454 of The Astrology Book: The Encyclopedia of Heavenly Influences (2003), by James R. Lewis.  Part of the problem here is that editors who know nothing about this field are trying to dictate to people who do know these things.  A person who knows nothing about the field should leave the decision of relevance up to those who do know. John Halloran (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

text: When I wrote the original three sections, it was just as a starter - I put underneath, "This article needs to be expanded."  Of course any article written by just one person was going to be one-sided.  But I guarantee that in the five years that the article stood, all the astrology software heavyweights viewed it.  Michael Erlewine himself edited it.  If there had been any factual inaccuracy in what I wrote, Michael would have corrected it, from his insider knowledge.  It was perfectly appropriate for Walter Pullen to add a mention of his historically important Astrolog program, which he started for the Unix operating system.  So for five years Wikipedia functioned as intended, a place where any expert could jump in and correct inaccurate information. I am just sorry that more contributors did not jump in with additional information, such as the info about Para Research, a company whose advertisements all astrologers my age remember seeing, or AstroNumeric Services, a company that competed with ACS and which partnered with Jim Lewis the astrocartographer to offered astromapping reports.  What attracted Verbal's attention was a paragraph of links that someone recently added to current programs and companies - that paragraph came too close to spam and opened up what was meant to be a very general article to abuse.  To avoid going down a road that would lead to abuse, the name of this page should revert from Horoscope Software back to Astrology and Computers. John Halloran (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good suggestion. What was the objection to "Astrology and Computers" that caused someone to change it to "Astrology Software"? Bn (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

text: It is late. Thanks for your statement.  You missed the word "or", which made the sentence accurate. Astrology calculation programs are either accurate for hundreds of years or for thousands of years.  The planet Saturn starts diverging by more than one degree from what numerical integration would give in my on-the-fly calculations if the date is more than 4,000 years from the present.  Some programs read from ephemeris or planet position files which increase the accuracy, but which have a limited date range. John Halloran (talk) 10:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not matter how expert someone is wiki9pedia works on verifability not truth. With out RS (and the excuse they do not exsist does not wash with me, as I have said befrore if something is notable it will have been noted.Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "The advantage of the expert is that he will know in advance  what statements to look for references for, and where to look for these references. " Good point, the article would benefit from his assistance in locating sources pending his willingness to give it and his understanding of what WP considers a reliable source . - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Nope, please provide RS that establish WP:NOTE. That tag should remain until that is done. Verbal chat 14:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested Discussion of Restored and Improved Content

message: Adding a subsection to discuss missing pieces.
Before the advent of PCs, a number of companies developed software on minicomputers to calculate horoscopes as a mail-order business. Some of these also created text (on the order of 1200-1400 multi-paragraph chunks of interpretive content) to be assembled into custom reports. (Example: Para Research, whose text files were also published as books, and are the origin of the text files still in use by Astrodienst. There's a convenient annotated list of the books at http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=108714247378.) Other companies developed software for PCs from the start, which they used for a mail-order business. (Example: Astro-Graphics Services, later named Astrolabe. Company history at http://alabe.com/history.htm.) This information about the history is missing from the article because of the difficulty finding sources that are accepted as reliable. Bn (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Gaps

message: I don't think any of the references are particularly unreliable. They wouldn't meet standards for science articles, but the purpose of the references here is to provide an independent account of what software is on the market. The real problem is that most of them are very out of date, so we don't know what's on the market now. Are there not any more recent articles in the major computer magazines? Itsmejudith (talk) 07:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I both agree and disagree. In computing these references are woefully out of date and newer references are very much needed. I disagree about the sources from New Age WP:FRINGE publishers, they are inherently unreliable. Verbal chat 08:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we have a problem, and I don't think it's related to POV pushing by WP editors. I've been searching for "astrology app review" and found that all the reviews are in astrology publications rather than in software publications. I would be happy to use these because if someone independent has checked out software and says "it's easy to use", "has new features", "disappointing", etc. etc., then it's a similar situation to a heavy metal album being reviewed in a heavy metal specialist mag. No source is "inherently unreliable"; even personal blogs can be used for some purposes. I'd be pleased to read other comments. Dab, what do you think? Any people who regularly edit software articles around? Itsmejudith (talk) 08:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Judith, you are starting to understand the nature of the field.  No astrologer would expect a computer magazine to be able to competently review an astrology program.  Computer people are able to admire a program's interface and adherence to things like Windows conventions, but without a knowledge of astrology, a reviewer would not know what they are looking at, so their review would be uninformed.  So the "mainstream" computer press and astrology programs have pretty much gone their separate ways.  I do remember that in the 1990s PC Magazine reviewed a program called "Love Ties" by Permutation Software, a program and a company that I had never heard of and which none of my customers have ever mentioned since.  So PC Magazine did not know what to review and their review was meaningless to astrologers.  You can see all the magazines and journals that reviewed my astrology software from 1995 to 2005 at this "http://www.halloran.com/quotesm.htm" Magazine Reviews page.  The earliest review is from the most ambitious attempt to do a comprehensive, impartial survey of all the major programs, by Tom Bridges in the November 1995 issue of Mountain Astrologer magazine.  There are also web sites that have reviews of astrology software programs, but you have to find out if there is a conflict of interest from the web site acting as a distributor or marketer of the software that they review, as there is then an incentive to push the software on which the most money can be made.  There used to be a website business called The Astrology Software Shop like this - although I was friendly with its proprietor, Mark McDonough, I could not get him to carry my software because of its lower price.  That issue of Mountain Astrologer magazine can be regarded as a Reliable Source.  I have a copy of the issue somewhere, but perhaps another reader can also supply a list of the programs and companies that made it into that survey of the field. John Halloran (talk) 09:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  These fringe or self published publications can't be used to establish notability. I'm getting worried that this subject may not actually be able to meet the criteria. Verbal chat 10:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but I have to disagree with you. I would say htat if you can establish notability within the field of astrology (rahter then computer science) I would say that counts as being notable. Not as computer programs but as Astrology software.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, we have to establish notability generally, using significant coverage in independent, reliable sources (ie not fringe sources). Verbal chat 10:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: For reviews of cultural products we would look for the kinds of publications that usually carry those reviews. For example, the Daily Mail's science coverage has come under a lot of fire and in many ways is fringe. We shouldn't use it for scientific fact. But its opinion of a new TV sitcom wouldn't be affected. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what Verbal was saying is that http://www.halloran.com/quotesm.htm is not in itself a reliable source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Please read WP:DICK. Please state with reference to the criteria in WP:NOTE how notability has been established. Thanks, Verbal chat 10:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt very much these are the programs under discussion, although freeware is (or was) mentioned. Bn (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Astrology may not have any scientific basis, but it's a widespread belief and has its own publications. Reviews in these publications can be considered reliable in the field and multiple reviews of the same program would indicate notability within the field. Asking for reviews in computer magazines is like asking for reviews of the Bible in scientific journals. Yworo (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better references 

message: Someone mentioned above that there would be no reliable sources to establish notability of astrology software. This is simply not true. There are a number of reliable sources within the field that have published reviews of software. One that I can think of off the top of my head is The Mountain Astrologer. I think it safe to say that a product which has a review could be listed along with a citation of the review. These reviews may not and need not be accessible online. Yworo (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can use these reviews but would be opposed to a list. It is more important to say what kind of features the software has. Some people will be interested in the IT technicalities, others in the astrological/astrononomical observation technicalities; how the software has evolved over time might be of interest too. Ideally this could be written up without naming particular packages. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that while there are many instances of astrological software, the number of reviewed software packages is so low as to not require a list. Yworo (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of astrology software 

message: This reference:
* 
to a chapter in one of the "Sydney Omarr's this-and-that" books seems to survey available astrology software, and looks useful to the page. User:Verbal has been repeatedly removing the book as being "not a reliable source"; comments would be welcome on whether a link to this chapter is worth including on the page or not. Shreevatsa (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is not a reliable source. I am not the only one to say this. What exactly in the body is it supporting? Only notable texts in and out of the field should be listed in the further reading section. Verbal chat 19:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Penguin books therefore perfectly sensible source for this article. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: May be so, but Sydney Omarr is not. Verbal chat 19:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

text: The article is on astrology software, and the book chapter is a survey of astrology software, in a popular book by a reputable publisher. Sydney Omarr's personal reputation is irrelevant: according to the Wikipedia article, he's dead, so the book is just named after him. Shreevatsa (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  That makes it even more problematic. Who wrote the section? And just what is it actually supporting? Verbal chat 19:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

text: The citation lists the authors for Chapter 9. Knowledgeable editors with access to this chapter can make references to it that support content in this article. And readers can get a survey of what's available today from a non-COI source. The only thing that is objectionable is this silly quarreling. Let's get on with improving the article. Bn (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It should be left out until it is used, when its suitability as a source can be better assessed. Verbal chat 16:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think you agree. If I understand Bn correctly, he's arguing that the book can be included, and answering your strange question of who the authors are (when they're already mentioned in the citation), and explaining why it's worth including. Obviously, works in "Further reading" are not meant for the purpose of directly supporting any specific statements in the article. You seem to be persistently blocking all attempts to improve the article, invoking policy rather than the good of the article. Please stop. Shreevatsa (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please justify why it should be added to the further reading section, which is for notable works or those that have had significant impact or praise. It seems this is just a section of one book in a series of no particular note. Verbal chat 16:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  We are here to build an encyclopedia. Asking why something "should" be added is not a productive question. If something is useful, and there are no strong reasons not to add it, we do so. Bn has already explained why it's useful: "readers can get a survey of what's available today from a non-COI source" (i.e. a source that does not also produce its own software). I have no connection with the book, authors, or astrology, but added the section (it's found in all books of the series, BTW) because it is useful, and an improvement. You on the other hand seem to be here on a personal vendetta, determined to remove anything you don't like, add tags just because you don't like the topic, etc. This sort of veiled aggressive behaviour is not helpful. Shreevatsa (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Verbal. I think this is a perfectly fine source just so long as it is actually used to source something. It would be great to use to source a list of current astrology software programs, and perhaps even for some text indicating their differences, strengths and weaknesses. But just adding it to further reading is promoting the book for no reason! Yworo (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Yworo that this article should include a list of the software reviewed in the cited chapter. This is a neutral review in a publication by a major publisher. Penguin Books (under its hard-nosed parent Pearson Longmans) would not include it if they did not think it was of interest to a large population of readers. Therefore, it further demonstrates notability of the topic (though that has already been amply demonstrated). It also demonstrates that readers of wikipedia will also be interested in seeing the list. Therefore, I agree that we should include a list of the software packages cited in this chapter as being the most notable, with a reference to that publication. We should add such others as are substantially mentioned in Prof. Lewis's book, which is cited elsewhere. I realize there is a concern for "me too" spam. Addition of other software might be met with a RS tag (not immediate deletion) until a suitable objective, wide distribution, non-COI reference can be found for it. Other reviews of astrological software can be found in professional journals such as those of the National_Council_for_Geocosmic_Research (one published since 1984, the other since 1991). Please stop grinding the axe and put more energy into providing useful information for those wikipedia readers who are actually interested in learning something about this topic. Bn (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

text: I see now that Yworo (here and 06:57, 7 July 2010) was suggesting a separate list topic, rather than a list incorporated into this article. List_of_disk_partitioning_software is an example of such a topic.Bn (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I retreated from that position, as there are probably not adequate sources for enough different pieces of software to make a list article worthwhile. Yworo (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

text: That is a matter for research, then. I'll add it to the Gaps section. Bn (talk) 10:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

text: It seems that the principal author is Trish MacGregor. I have found nothing significant about Carol Tonsing; she may be an editor at Penguin. The interview with MacGregor on the Matrix site http://www.astrologysoftware.com/resources/articles/getarticle.asp?ID=101 makes it clear that she is a competent technician and also a successful writer who is effective at addressing the general public. She is certainly competent to review astrology software for the purpose stated in the cited chapter, that is, to encourage readers to investigate beyond the necessary limitations of such a book, which they cannot do if all they know is which 30-degree segment of the ecliptic the sun was in when they were born. (For those who are not familiar with the field, the necessary limitation is that a writer for the general public can say nothing in respect to where the moon and eight planets were for each reader. They can either write generalities about the sun sign, as in newspaper astrology and in the "day by day" parts of this book, hence their superficiality; or they can detail between one and two thousand possible combinations for the most well-known factors, as in text such as is employed by astrological software and published in some books (e.g. the Para Research titles mentioned in discussion). This limitation obviously does not effect the cited review chapter.)Bn (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Sydney Omarr book 

message: Please demonstrate how WP:NOTE has been met. Thanks, Verbal chat 09:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: On the top of WP:NOTE, it says "…guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense". Please use common sense. It is not a "rule" to be "met", after which you can decide what is a "valid tag" and what is not. As a class of software, it is clearly notable enough. You're the only one who disagrees. Shreevatsa (talk) 09:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

text: BTW, WP:NOTE has "If you want to ask advice whether an article topic is likely to be notable please visit the notability noticeboard". Please go seek advice there if you disagree with all other editors here, so that this can be settled once and for all. Shreevatsa (talk) 09:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This article does not meet any of the notability criteria, and does not seem notable to the mainstream per lack of coverage. Common sense says it is not notable. Please also restore the refimprove tag, that is better than having to litter the page with citation needed tags and is required do to the poor nature of the current sources. I do not need to ask for advice, as I understand why this article currently fails the criteria. Thanks, Verbal chat 09:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Surely, when your view differs from that of everyone else, you ought to realise there's something wrong? :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 10:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Why? We are not beholden to any such non-rule, we're just supposed to improve the encyclopedia. What do you think you're doing? Shreevatsa (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Astrology software is certainly notable, even if there are no individual software products that meet notability requirements. There are 7 valid reference on the article, and the further reading section has two additional sources that cover astrology software in general. As long as there are reliable sources supporting the article, notability has been established. Yworo (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please answer the question, following notability criteria. There are multiple problems with the poor sources as is already clear from above. Verbal chat 09:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please detail what you find "poor" about the sources. Yworo (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability, again 

message: A certain user keeps adding a notability tag when the article is supported by multiple reliable sources which establish notability of the topic (e.g. Astrology for Dummies as a recent source). They also have removed references to reviews in the leading trade magazine for astrologers. This magazine has won awards and is available in mainstream bookstores including Barnes & Noble and Borders. It qualifies for an article on Wikipedia as it meet notability requirements. It's a reliable source within the field of the astrology business, reviews tools used by those in the trade, and is neither spam nor unreliable. Astrology may be "fringe", but it is popular and has its own reliable sources with the field. Please weigh in on these issues. Yworo (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide WP:RS that show a specific criteria of WP:NOTE is met, with a justification. The listing of multiple non-notable products is, as was agreed above, unhelpful and fails WP:UNDUE - and is very close to being spam (or spammy, as it is called above). Verbal chat 02:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would susgest taking this to the RSN board.Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Verbal, the consensus here is against you and you are edit warring. If you truly believe that astrology software is not notable as a topic, then nominate the article for deletion. If you believe the sources do not qualify as reliable, take it to the RSN board. Otherwise, stop edit warring against the consensus that the sources are reliable and they support notability. Yworo (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC discussion of notability and trade publication sources