The result was keep Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 14:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article fails WP:BIO and WP:NOR. Failed candidate. Delete GreenJoe 20:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC) I am amicable with Merge. GreenJoe 04:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as a hopelessly ill-defined political battleground masquerading as a list. The editors arguing to keep the article have stated that it meets criteria, but do not elaborate how this article can ever be neutral or stable; those arguing for deletion have pointed out numerous unfixable flaws in the premise and content of the article. -Wafulz 17:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Labelled? By who? When? This will never be anything other than a battleground. It amounts to a POV fork of the State Terrorism articles that already exist and we don't need another front in these fights. It'll always be a POV magnet for edit warriors already active in other areas of Wikipedia. RxS 01:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A group of articles about DVDs, not notable DVDs but just Diva DVDs, which basically summarise the DVDs with no source other than the DVDs themselves. Darrenhusted 23:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating (as they are all the same thing):
The result was keep. The list is not indiscriminate. Non-admin closure. --Boricuaeddie 00:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This list clearly goes against WP:NOT#DIR. Half a dozen non-red links, and a couple of those go to external websites. Russavia 23:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Declined speedy. Previously deleted. Article created by User:Zomax. It is an American company that provides media and supply chain solutions. 650l2520 07:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Copyvios should be speedied in most cases. --Coredesat 05:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While this group has excelled within the competition of Winter Guard International, the group still does not meet notability standards. WGI is somewhat of a niche competition that is not as notable or well-known as the two major drum corps organizations. Moreover, this article is written an overly promotional tone straight out of a news release. Realkyhick 07:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. There are no policy violations and the consensus seems to be to keep the article in some form. There is no consensus for deletion. Significant editing has occurred since this AfD was listed and the nomination does not reflect the current state of the article. JodyB yak, yak, yak 18:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am renominating this page for deletion. This article is mostly full of junk, and contains lists of names for no apparent reason. It also includes "close calls" of celebrities which don't seem at all significant. Also contains junk from 2001 that has never been and probably cannot be updated because it was never significant in the first place. It has had a cleanup tag on it for almost a year and a wikify tag for almost five months, as well as a long-standing update tag. I think this article should be deleted; if there is any material here worth keeping that ISN'T already in the main attack article (I don't see any), that could be kept, but overall, I think this article is junk and just full of non-notable material. The last AFD ended with a majority saying it should be moved to a different wiki or deleted. Titanium Dragon 23:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC) [Page formatting corrected by ●DanMS • Talk 00:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC) and by Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 00:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)][reply]
Going through the article:
All of this could be summarized as
According to the 9/11 Comission, between 16,400 and 18,800 civilians were in the World Trade Center complex at the time of the attacks. Only 14 people escaped from the impact zone of the South Tower after it was hit, and only four people from floors above it. They escaped via Stairwell A, the only stairwell which had been left intact after impact. No one was able to escape from above the impact zone in the North Tower after it was hit, as all stairwells and elevator shafts on those floors were destroyed. After the collapse of the towers, only 20 survivors were pulled out of the debris, including 15 rescue workers. The last survivor was pulled from the rubble 27 hours after the collapse of the towers. 6,291 people were reported to have been treated in area hospitals for injuries related to the 9/11 attacks in New York City.
This is easily inserted into the main article, but all of this information is already there. Titanium Dragon 00:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. There is no consensus to delete; article was relisted but consensus still not attained. JodyB yak, yak, yak 22:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable minor character from Hollyoaks. Fails WP:FICT criteria. No character list to merge. •97198 talk 13:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this article should stay as she is still a character in Hollyoaks, even if she is a baby, and the current storylines feature her considerably. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwencooper (talk • contribs) 22:50, July 30, 2007
The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Combination of non-notable magician and spam for the magic seller he works for. Ghits are misleading as they are mostly referring to the effects he is marketing, or forum discussions. There appears to be no significant coverage in reliable sources, so fails WP:N. Saikokira 23:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. --Coredesat 05:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This list clearly goes against WP:NOT#DIR. Half a dozen non-red links, and a couple of those go to external websites. Russavia 23:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Keep comments were rife with Singapore-centrism and WP:ATA arguments (WP:USEFUL, to name one). —Kurykh 01:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I originally put a ((prod)) tag with the rationale
This was removed by Kappa with the edit summary
Still, Wikipedia is not a directory and such listings without context are useless. See hotels in London for an article that has some value. Pascal.Tesson 23:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, sources have been added so I withdraw. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 22:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article on an upcoming Greatest Hits package from Faith Hill, not due out until October 2. I've been following this album for a while, and I can verify that the album release date has been repeatedly pushed back. Sites like Amazon and Billboard have posted several different tracklistings, with none of said listings being confirmed yet. Should be deleted as a case of WP:CRYSTAL until further notice. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 16:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE (unsourced, own website gone, notability not established). Note: recreation if/when a second Festival really occurs in March 2008 should not be speedy deleted as recrewation, IMO - Nabla 21:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No pages link to this except for the redirect page Festival of europe. WP:NOTABLE#Notability_is_not_temporary applies here, I think; even if other such series of lectures occur in future years the topic would not seem to be notable at the moment. Presumably it was thought worthy of an article based on the institutions and speakers involved, but I can't see anything linking back to this page unless a future Festival makes the news in some way, or until the event becomes more established. Ham 22:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Let's give a few more days for additional responses (I note that the external links aren't that helpful). El_C 18:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sr13 is almost Singularity 05:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page is out of date, needs a lot of updating, and will need regular updating. It has been tagged to be updated for over 6 months, and noone has done this. TFoxton 22:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook may also apply. Instruction manuals... Wikipedia articles should not include instructions, advice (legal, medical, or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. --TFoxton 22:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable neologism coined by some kids in New York City. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or for things made up one day. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 22:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced bio of jeweler from New York City. Fails WP:BIO. Lack of google hits and article tone lead me to suspect WP:HOAX. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 22:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete CitiCat ♫ 01:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Naples, Fl-based punk band. Although they won a contest, they are a myspace-based band without sufficient notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 21:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete, recreation of deleted material (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Over 9000). Krimpet 00:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable neologism and internet meme. Doesn't meet criteria for own article. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --Coredesat 05:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because the subject has strenously objected to the existence and content of the Wikipedia article on his webpage and in private correspondence (I created the article). The subject is a minor academic figure who has published a critique of the nativist strand of psycholinguistics which is actually rather good, but which nonetheless attracted little critical or commercial attention, and therefore only barely qualifies as "notable". Since he is so incensed by the Wikipedia entry, in light of the requirement that Wikipedia is sensitive on biographical material relating to living authors, and given that the subject is an extremely peripheral figure in any event, it seems reasonable to just delete the entry and be done with it. Mean time, I have removed the majority of the disputed content, making the article very brief indeed. I have notified all other users who have contributed to the article (that is, three of them) of this AfD. ElectricRay 20:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy enough for deletion in light of the above. I do think that the article's existence has some slight merit in documenting the existence and terms of debates over various forms of political correctness, especially racism. Given that the page had included a link to his own webpage,and had been modified in light of the comments made there, I wonder if Professor Sampson has any strong opinions on the current or previous version? If he's reasonably happy it might be worth perpetuating it. HTH Richard Keatinge 21:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The result was Keep. CitiCat ♫ 02:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person. There are thousands of college and university deans around the world and this article does not indicate why this one should have an article. A notability tag was added in March and there has been little improvement since. --Hdt83 Chat 20:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus. CitiCat ♫ 01:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A year after the first AfD, still no assertion of notability, nor any coverage in reliable secondary sources. Fails all criteria for inclusion. Valrith 20:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Majorly (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know it got through last time, but seriously - this lacks evidence of notability, is generally unloved, and I'm not sure how well it currently meets verifiability requirements either. makomk 19:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Can be mentioned in main article if desired. CitiCat ♫ 02:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't establish notability. Possible merge with Black Panthers? Neutralitytalk 19:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. —Kurykh 01:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possible promotional article that does not appear to establish notability. -WarthogDemon 19:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person with only 277 Google hits. PC78 19:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 10:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completely non-notable short film. The film was done by a "David Accampo" and this article was created by Daccampo. Clear conflict of interest and an attempt to use Wikipedia to advertise his own work. IrishGuy talk 19:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really can't find any information about this on google, save one page: [8]. As such, this page faces serious WP:V, possible WP:OR issues (author may have coined the term himself). The Evil Spartan 18:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of NCIS episodes per recent concensus, not worth deleting. Jaranda wat's sup 21:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-encyclopaedic plot-summaries of an unpopular TV show. This entire category belongs in some kind of almanac, or, better yet, a personal fanpage. Dbelange 18:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 05:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This so-called airline fails WP:CORP as it is not an airline, but a travel agency posing as an airline. The evidence so that others unfamiliar can verify for themselves
Any company (or individual) can charter an aircraft and sell seats and call themselves an airline, but to be an actually airline is a different thing entirely. Russavia 18:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 05:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an advertisement disguised as a definition. It should either be deleted or moved to wikidictionary. Clerks. 18:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, especially given the campaign the people involved have been running to get the article kept. Wikipedia is not where things go to become notable. --Coredesat 05:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Organization lacks notability per WP:CORP. It is an article about a project that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. Calltech 18:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 05:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While the founder's efforts are laudable, the company itself is not notable and smacks of self-promotion. One reliable source cited, others are own web sites or news releases. Realkyhick 18:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Article space salted, user blocked. A Traintalk 21:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rap group that does not pass notability standards at all. Article is written like a news release, likely copied from another source. No major label, no charting, nothing that can be verified, just the usual collection of Myspace, Youtube and promotional web site links. Realkyhick 17:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. - the_undertow talk 02:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely unreferenced, stands only on original research and has been marked for such (and for cleanup), with no attempt having been made at remedying the issue, since December 2006. Fullmetal2887 (discuss me) 17:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 05:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Non-notable philosophy that has exactly one Google hit — this very article. Dubious at best, hoax at worst. Realkyhick 17:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 05:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COntested prod, Non notable sport at best, possible hoax. -- lucasbfr talk 17:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Majorly (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:VERIFY, no assertion of notability, no third party links. Jackaranga 17:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --Coredesat 05:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:VERIFY (no assertion of notability, because no third party links) Jackaranga 17:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus — Caknuck 20:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting deletion on grounds that the article fails WP:BLP, the subject ran in an election to become governor of Tokyo and lost, receiving less than 1% of the vote. No reliable third party sources. Burntsauce 17:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --Coredesat 05:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:VERIFY, there are no links asserting notability. Jackaranga 16:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. I have always hated Big Brother with an abiding passion so that makes me the ideal closer! The article has been cleaned up since its nomination. The lack of sourcing is a matter for tagging not for deletion - we delete when an article cannot be sourced and plainly this one can. I see no persuasive deletion argument. TerriersFan 03:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another unsourced list. Very poor grammar and prose, frequent spelling errors. Use of fan-slang (eg. BB8). Each series article has its own section on housemates and there is a category for housemates that have their own articles. Just what purpose does this article serve? Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 16:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Cisco IOS. Marasmusine 09:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a single configuration level in a particular line of machines. Is it sufficiently notable on its own to merit an article? There are sources of a sort, but they're merely instructional books on how to access it or things to do when you've accessed it. FrozenPurpleCube 16:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect to National Treasure (film). Sr13 is almost Singularity 05:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable character, no mainspace articles link to this one. The sunder king 16:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Merge and Redirect Insufficient notability, only minor character in the movie. Delete and redirect isn't a valid result per the GFDL. Horrorshowj 23:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 05:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see any assertions to notability. The lead says "he is noted in numerous county and church records" but this is not sourced and even if it were referenced by the records, it seems too trivial to be considered a reliable source. The rest of the article is full of unsourced info about his ancestry, which for a non-notable bio doesn't really mean much. - Zeibura (Talk) 16:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Meh; funny about the sigs. Sr13 is almost Singularity 05:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marketing company involved in several notable events, but no indication that the company itself is well-known per WP:CORP. Also, given that author is User:Prosody07, there's a conflict of interest. NawlinWiki 16:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having had an article written about him in a daily paper about his starting a business at a young age doesn't seem to meet a reasonable definition of notability. I previously speedied it, restoring for AfD per request. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 05:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Kinloch climbs mountains for charity. Admirable, but no indication that he's been recognized for this by independent sources. NawlinWiki 16:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 00:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced page of a non-notable fighter Thesaddestday 16:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. CitiCat ♫ 02:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reason The article has no information. It is doubtful whether any apropriate content will ever be added. Dayleyj 16:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 05:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No proof that it fulfils WP:BIO for academics, and googling doesn't show things that make him fulfil it. Nyttend 15:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JodyB yak, yak, yak 22:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries. Otto4711 15:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was: Speedy deleted under A7 notability
Advertisement of not notable website Joedoedoe 15:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted by User:DerHexer. Non-admin closure. Iain99 15:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't make any sense at all, incohent mess, unencyclopedic. The sunder king 14:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 04:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Article looks unsalvageable. Makes no particular claim to notability, and most of the information seems unencyclopedic. Pekaje 14:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 04:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A pretty bad WP:NOT#DIR/WP:NOT#IINFO list. Bulldog123 14:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 04:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a pretty good example of an agenda-oriented list. It essentially translates to (or at least intends to translate to) List of songs that reached one on Hot 100 by artists who aren't Caucasian without bothering to address why there should be nobility in such an intersection. Also, the specificity of the list (note this is merely top 100, not a "chart-topper") is unusual. Bulldog123 13:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Canuckle 23:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect; merge has been performed. Sr13 is almost Singularity 04:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has previously been listed on AFD, without consensus to delete - having 12600 books doesn't make it notable IMHO, and there's nothing claimed here to make this library more special - maybe merging into Anchor Point is the best bet. The previous AFD debate is found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anchor Point Public Library . Apologigies if I didn't list this AFD correctly --Moglex 13:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 04:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries or bullet-pointed lists of plot summary sentences. Otto4711 13:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was procedural close of group nomination by consensus in order to list these unrelated pages separately. Requesting nominator to provide separate nominations. ●DanMS • Talk 00:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm... all these articles here:
Pure Listcruft, unmanageable if comprehensive. See similar AfDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese books by title and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of black rock musicians David Fuchs (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. Young clearly meets WP:PROF and probably scrapes by WP:BIO given this source he provided. Concerns about the autobiographic/spammy nature of the article are raised and insufficiently reputed, but the article is still in progress, making these claims difficult to evaluate.
A side note about WP:PROF - researchs who are regularly quoted in multiple diverse newspapers are probably at the top of their field and notable - that's the point. My supervisor has been quoted a couple of times in the Toronto Star - this does not make her notable. If you threw in two dozen or so quotes for newspapers outside of Hogtown, then it might indicate that.
![]() | This page in a nutshell: WP:BIO and WP:PROF seem to be at least marginally met - and the concerns about the spamm-i-ness are unresolved. |
Autobiography. Not sure whether it satisfies WP:PROF. Errabee 12:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hopefully final comment from me: Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and room exists, like an 'unabridged dictionary', to keep whatever article is 'useful' to the reader. Is this article pertinent/useful? Anyone interested in the subject mattter of finding, locating,and verifying supercentenarians, as well as those interested in the theories of how long humans really live, would find this artcle useful, as it brings together a wide variety of material that one may not realize at first is linked. Past authors have created articles such as A. Ross Eckler Jr, Louis Epstein (supercentenarian tracker), etc which, despite having fewer references and less assertion of notability, have gone basically unchallenged. In this case, we find the challenges initially came from those with 'conflicts of interest'...Errabee was involved in a dispute over 'assessment' of other articles; some others who were involved in the Mary Ramsey Wood dispute, while notably not voting, did contribute comments against. In regards to 'votestacking', one does not see "Robert's mother" or "Robert's friend" voting...a common signal from a 'vanity' viewpoint. Instead, one sees voters who either were familiar with the subject (who mostly voted to keep despite never having met Robert in person and having been at odds with him in the past) and those voting to delete (mostly unfamiliar with the subject). If violations of the rules have come, they have come from both sides (normally a 'nominator' does not vote, for example; the page has been open for over the normal 5-day time used to make a decision). It seems that once the emotions are stripped away, however, we have a core class of similar, relevant articles. Notably, this article, David Allen Lambert, was created by David using a 'sockpuppet' and sourced with sources including his own blog and own work website...hardly the definition of fair, following the rules, or notability. Not only that, the article was created on the basis of newsmedia attention from a single case...the 'oldest professional baseball player' discovered...whose age ultimately turned out to be a mess (either 109, 111, or 113). By contrast, it could be argued that having worked on hundreds of cases, several of which exceeded the press mention of Silas Simmons (i.e. Maria Capovilla, Charlotte Benkner, Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan, Emiliano Mercado Del Toro, etc), that in the same way that a 'Hall of Famer' in baseball is rated based on 'career achievement', so wouldn't a long track record of success equate to more than just a single "15 minutes of fame" story...
Those that argue, moreover, that this article should be deleted on the basis that longevity-claims verification or debunking is not important have failed to note that such issues have been discussed in the literature for over a century (see, for example, William Thoms) and generally the issue has been championed by a few persons who gained notoriety in the literature. It is important for history's sake to chart the progression of ideas, methods, etc. regarding the approach to the subject of attempting to determine the life-span of humanity.
It should also be noted that the rationale for keeping the article is not merely that Robert is notable for 'finding/debunking claims' but for being a major organizer of efforts to advance the entire field. When scientists turned to experts for their journal articles, often two names especially came up:
Aging: The Reality: Demography of Human Supercentenarians -- Coles ...1, 1890, Living, 113*, W, M, Robert Young/Louis Epstein .... 27, 1893, Oct. 2, 2003, 110, 128, B, F, Robert Young/Louis Epstein ... biomed.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/content/full/59/6/B579/TA1 - Similar pages
When France's leading expert (Jean-Marie Robine, validator of the Jeanne Calment case) looked for help, who did he turn to?
[PDF] Emergence of Supercentenarians in Low Mortality CountriesFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML the internet by Louis Epstein with the help of Robert Young ..... England and Wales, by France Meslé and Jacques Vallin (INED) and Jean-Marie Robine ... user.demogr.mpg.de/jwv/pdf/AmActJournal2002.pdf - Similar pages
Some FIVE YEARS AGO we see Louis Epstein and Robert Young credited....
Whgen Guinness World Records looked for an expert to hire in 2005, they must have known already about Robert to have offered him the position.
Again, the best argument and summation of the situation:
Wiki says the following: "An academic repeatedly quoted in newspapers or newsmagazines may be considered to meet criterion 1. A small number of quotations, especially in local newsmedia, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark." This is very true of Robert Young, I have read at least half-a-dozen newspapers/online newspapers which cite Robert Young on his subject matter, and thus he meets the Academic notability requirements. I am also somewhat concerned that Errabee appears to have nominated AfD several articles that Robert Young has been involved with in what seems to be a punitive measure for him asking a reasonable question about the assessment of an article. RichyBoy 09:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being quoted in a local newspaper for a local event is one thing...being quoted worldwide in newspapers, magazines, and journals spanning the globe is quite another. To be quoted from both the academic and public (media) sectors argues that the article could be validated from two perspectives.
It is true that some 'greats' have done things that gained multiple recognition. William Thoms was noted for inventing the term 'folklore' and for beginning the modern process of age validation research. Cal Ripken Jr didn't just play in 2,632 consecutive games; he also hit 431 home runs and had 3,000+ hits. Having achieved in multiple measures is a sign that someone is more than just a 'one-trick' pony. In every endeavor with an organization...from the GRG to Guinness to the Max Planck to the SRF to the SSA to the NECS...the primary motivation for inclusion was 'research,' not money. In each case Robert was asked/invited to participate by those who judged him worthy. Just as the best-qualified to judge a baseball player's career are other baseball players, so a jury of Robert's peers has already recognized him as someone to turn to for expert advice in the field. Surely that should be more than enough to qualify for an article. It seems, ultimately, that the main arguments against come from either one of two angles: A. the person doesn't know/care about the subject or B. an argument about honesty/rules/cheating. Yet we find on Robert's talk page an explanation for article creation as well as no attempt to hide who created the article. Had it not been for the interjection of controversy from other areas of Wikipedia, this article would have been created quietly and no one would have noticed or objected. Hence, it does seem the push for deletion is based on emotion and the rationale for keeping is based on an assessment of the material by those who know about it the best.
Sincerely, Robert Young
P.S.
In protest to the what I perceive as unfair treatment by some, I am not using my main 'Ryoung' moniker until this issue is resoleved. 74.237.28.5 05:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that be 'rename'? Also, the argument now seems to question not just Robert Young but also an entire sub-field. Anyone in the field of gerontology knows that it is really am umbrella term, that the only thing that unites it is that the focus is 'old age/senescence' (particularly in humans). Gerontology may emcompass the biological, social, and psychological aspects of aging; gerontological policy includes issues such as financing old age and retirement.
ger·on·tol·o·gy (jĕr'ən-tŏl'ə-jē) n. The scientific study of the biological, psychological, and sociological phenomena associated with old age and aging.
However, it should be noted that the study of 'supercentenarians' involves much in old-age research. Investigating whether someone's age is true is simply the beginning. Why do women live longer than men? Why do thin people live longer than fat people? Why do some people age more quickly than others? Are there any genetic, racial, or national differences in longevity? What social factors are in play? What about urban/rural? A little research shows that there is a discipline within biological gerontology that seeks to answer questions based on studying the extremes of longevity...and for which, the necessary of ensuring that the research is based on accurately reported ages is paramount. I suggest you read this article:
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/demography/v040/40.4rosenwaike.html
131.96.70.164 04:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
Since when is citing sources,
http://www.globalaging.org/health/us/2006/longevityclues.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5293436.stm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-08-28-oldest-person_x.htm
http://www.hindu.com/2006/08/29/stories/2006082904102200.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14550820/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11497251/
when that is what you asked for, vanispamcruft? You simply lowered yourself to mudslinging. Delete or not, you have shown your colors and then are not good. Simply attacking someone for answering the question is ridiculous.Ryoung122 16:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To make it fair to readers who may not wish to read everything from one source, I have made a separate section with my response. The debate continues in the next section.
Greetings,
Actually I'm glad this vote came about because in a democracy, we are judged by a 'jury of our peers.' And ultimately the community decides what or who is notable. However, another concept of Western democracy is that decisions be based on the best information available at the time, and that a 'defendant' be able to present his/her case.
So far, this article has been criticized or suggested for deletion based on the following grounds: WP:PROF, WP: BIO, WP: RS and WP: AUTO. As it would make for a stacked-deck argument together, I plan to challenge each one separatley. I start with the argument that I believe is least relevant: 'autobiography.'
1. Reading the policy page, I find this:
This page is considered a content guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.
The problem with autobiographies It is said that Zaphod Beeblebrox's birth was marked by earthquakes, tidal waves, tornadoes, firestorms, the explosion of three neighbouring stars, and, shortly afterwards, by the issuing of over six and three quarter million writs for damages from all of the major landowners in his Galactic sector. However, the only person by whom this is said is Beeblebrox himself, and there are several possible theories to explain this.
– The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams
Typical problems with autobiographies include:
They are often biased, usually positively. People will write overly positively about themselves, and often present opinions as facts. Wikipedia aims to avoid presenting opinions as facts. (Neutral point of view does not mean simply writing in the third person). They can be unverifiable. If the only source for a particular fact about you is you yourself, then readers cannot verify it. (One common area where this is the case is with hopes, dreams, thoughts, and aspirations. There is no way for readers to verify what you think.) Everything in Wikipedia articles must be verifiable. They can contain original research.
Typical problems with autobiographies include:
They are often biased, usually positively. People will write overly positively about themselves, and often present opinions as facts. Wikipedia aims to avoid presenting opinions as facts. (Neutral point of view does not mean simply writing in the third person). They can be unverifiable. If the only source for a particular fact about you is you yourself, then readers cannot verify it. (One common area where this is the case is with hopes, dreams, thoughts, and aspirations. There is no way for readers to verify what you think.) Everything in Wikipedia articles must be verifiable. They can contain original research.
It is not impossible to write a neutral, verifiable autobiography, and they are not strictly forbidden.
So, we see that 'it is not impossible to write a neutral, verifiable autobiography, and they are not strictly forbidden.'
In fact, read the example entry from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and then read mine. I don't start out with a long discussion of why my birth was special, about my family, or how I got to where I am today. Instead, I presented a collection of short information that, like a news article, begins with the most important first and then fleshes out the point. Third, whether this 'tends to advance me or not' it should be relevant, firstly, because if notations are made to articles about supercentenarian claims (such as Mary Ramsey Wood) and a reader begins to think, 'who is this guy'? 'what does he know about this case?' 'why should I believe him?' then it becomes paramount to have a wikilinked article that leads back to me. Considering, in the constellation of Wikipedia, we have over 200 articles on 'supercentenarians' alone and ones about longevity myths, longevity claims, and past and present researchers such as William Thoms, A. Ross Eckler, Jr and Louis Epstein, I find exlcuding myself really doesn't make a lot of sense.Ryoung122 16:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Wikipedia: Professor. Since I am not a professor, nor have I claimed to be, that comment and policy does not apply.Ryoung122 16:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Assertions of WP: BIO and WP:RS.
Since the argument seems to hinge on the lack of reliable, independent sources, I plan to lay out some sources here. It would be unfair to assert that there are no sources, when in fact there are plenty.
A. Assertion of being with Guinness:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11497251/ (article on Yone Minagawa, world's oldest person; source is MSNBC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5293436.stm (article on Maria Capovilla, world's oldest person; source is BBC)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-08-28-oldest-person_x.htm (USA Today seems notable)
http://www.hindu.com/2006/08/29/stories/2006082904102200.htm (The Hindu, a national newspaper for India)
B. Assertion of being with the GRG:
http://www.grg.org/JZaslowWSJ.htm
(Wall Street Journal)
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/09/24/TampaBay/She_s_America_s_oldes.shtml
(St. Petersburg Times) (this from 2002)
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001943934_oldestobit01.html (a major newspaper; this was from 2004)
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03327/242936.stm (Pittsburgh PA: this is 2003)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/12/BAG61QV5G31.DTL&feed=rss.bayarea
(the San Francisco Chronicle)
C. Assertion of working on the 'Wisdom of the World's Oldest People':
http://www.globalaging.org/health/us/2006/longevityclues.htm
If you don't believe me, you can buy the book on Amazon.com.
D. Assertion of working with the New England Centenarian Study:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/547228
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2006.00826.x
E. Other sources
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/rej.2006.9.503?cookieSet=1
(Rejuvenation Research)
NPR : The Secrets of America's SupercentenariansThey're of particular interest to the Gerontology Research Group, gerontologists, ... ELLIS: Robert Young became the senior claims investigator of the GRG. ... www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4054195 - Similar pages
(National Public Radio)
[CR] Centenarians, diet vs genes, sex ratio Part 2For a complete validation of the age of a supercentenarian, it is frequently ..... 16, 1889 Living 114* WF Robert Young Spain Spain Joan Riudavets Dec. ... lists.calorierestriction.org/pipermail/cr_lists.calorierestriction.org/2007-January/003499.html - 44k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages
[PDF] grna-59-06-11 579..586File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat the age of a supercentenarian, it is frequently necessary to ..... member is Robert Young of Atlanta, Georgia, a GRG senior claims ... biomed.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/reprint/59/6/B579.pdf - Similar pages
In summation, I can be found in thousands of sources from six continents. To continue listing more would be a disproportionate response (some might think this already is; however, given that the assertion was mainly lack of sources, it makes sense to provide sources). The assertion for notability/raison d'etre for this article is that I am one of the, if not the, 'world's leading expert' in the field of supercentenarian research. To peg me to just one group when I am involved in so many isn't really the best answer. Proviving a separate article page on Wikipedia is. When others float a controversial claimant, and it turns out to be not true, then others will wonder what credentials I might have to make this assertion. It makes sense, then, to have this article and list everything in the proper place. If others disagree it is their right to vote differently but I believe I have made a case. Some of the articles are from years ago, so there is a consistent pattern over time, not just a '15-minutes of fame' story.
However, it could be said that the story isn't really about me, it's about an idea: how long to people really live? In cases like these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Coates
People are continually making up false age claims. Getting the message out there about how long humans really live seems to be the REAL and MOST IMPORTANT issue here.
Have a nice day.Ryoung122 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Notability: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive. From the MSNBC article: Tomoji Tanabe, 111, was born Sept. 18, 1895, and lives in the southern city of Miyazaki, according to Robert Young, senior consultant for gerontology for Guinness World Records. This is the only mention of Young in the article. Thus that is trivial coverage and not “Significant coverage” needed for notability of people as covered here “Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.” Wikipedia needs an article on you, not the people you study as are what all of the articles in the section “A. Assertion of being with Guinness” are. Aboutmovies 16:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article is about the position, and one can hardly consider coverage 'trivial' when the point of being in there is, ironically, to serve as a SOURCE...an assertion that the newspaper didn't make this story up, someone else out there is 'vouching' for the information to be true. From this perspective, the coverage need not be a 'biography'...Ryoung122 17:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See also the Wall Street Journal article (on page 1). Or perhaps check out the 2007 Guinness Book (hardcover edition) and see page 2.Ryoung122 17:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings,
I questioned the downgrading of this article by 'Errabee':
[edit] Assessment of 'Surviving Veterans' Article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Surviving_veterans_of_World_War_I
Greetings,
Please explain your downgrading of this article's rating. I do not believe that the "B" class description is the most accurate, and it should be upgraded or at least undergo 'peer review.'
Ryoung122 01:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The response was an attempt to list the article for deletion, which failed...and also included listing THIS article for deletion. Thus once again, we see circumstantial evidence for those opposing this article's existence linked to disputes and vendettas, not personal notions of objective assessment.
Note the vote in favor of keep was by an extremely large margin (over 90%). Thus it seems the issue is that Errabee's 'ego' was offended by my questioning of his article downgrade and a request for an article review.Ryoung122 18:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You think this hasn't been a trying/degrading experience for me as well? The main purpose of the article was so to provide MORE INFORMATION to the user, NOT write an entire autobiographical novel. In the same way that a 'category' links articles with a common theme, so it made sense that the next step in the 'evolution' of a supercentenarian-research family tree was the creation of small biographical articles that link the work done in that time period...whether the 1870's or the 1990's or whatever. NO ONE would find the article unless they were looking for it. There was no 'site-meter' counter, or a link-SPAM to some article being SOLD. The article was curt and to the point. Also, it seems the whole debate centers on mis-using half-truths. "Triviality" includes things such as 'bank statements'. It does NOT include being listed as the authoritative source for more than 1,000 news articles, research papers, and major media including BBC, CNN, National Public Radio, the United Nations, etc.
Ego? It seems that nearly every objection here was based on ego, such as Traynor's comments like this one: "complaints about the process, Wiki cliques or the like -- are invariably counterproductive to the article's survival." So, after voting for 'delete' and with a page relishing how angry he obviously makes a lot of people (with a disclaimer about don't e-mail him about it, one can only imagine), Wikipedia 'vote for deletion' has become a mockery, a blood-sport. Those that 'kiss the ring' and kneel/submit are spared...I could literally cite thousands of deletable pages that have survived for over a year...but one dare to barge into another's area of 'expertise' and who-hoo, nay-saying at its best. But ultimately I welcome this. It sharpens my focus on what I haven't done yet, and need to do. Clearly, being #1 in the world slaving behind the curtain isn't enough...selling oneself (prostituting) to win a popularity contest is what really counts. Spare me. Wikipedia has already run off Louis Epstein. The literature of age-validation research has been out for 130 years, but it seems that people would rather fall for the claim that Habib Miyan is '137' because that means they can put off until later thinking about their own mortality. In fact, voting on Wikipedia makes one feel immortal. Sorry folks, unless someone figures out how to transhumanize you, you're doomed.
Ok, and now back to this article...it serves its point and it should have passed 'notability' with flying colors. At least three sources? Try 3,000. "Non-trivial?" Being the cited authority is not trivial; being cited in a bank statement is. Not knowing the difference? Complete stupidity.
It is said the ultimate judge of importance in a field is by a jury of one's peers--such as Jean-Marie Robine of France, James Vaupel from Germany, Bernard Jeune from Denmark, Roger Thatcher from England, etc. Clearly, Wikipedia isn't. Other noted researchers from around the world know who I am. More than that, I have helped shape and advance the field in the past decade, pushing it from a backwater to a suddenly front-burner issue. Just wait, you haven't seen anything yet.
When Europe decided to compile an international database on longevity, they asked for the help of two persons in particular...Louis Epstein and Robert Young.
JSTOR: The World Trend in Maximum Life SpanJOHN R. WILMOTH / JEAN-MARIE ROBINE to the Swedish trend in the maximum age at death, ..... Axel Skytthe, Roger Thatcher, Jacques Vallin, and Robert Young. ... links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0098-7921(2003)29%3C239%3ATWTIML%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O - Similar pages
[PDF] Emergence of Supercentenarians in Low Mortality CountriesFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML the internet by Louis Epstein with the help of Robert Young ..... England and Wales, by France Meslé and Jacques Vallin (INED) and Jean-Marie Robine ... user.demogr.mpg.de/jwv/pdf/AmActJournal2002.pdf - Similar pages
As for Guinness, they ASKED ME to help them, I didn't apply for the job. I was well known before then, which explains why they asked, does it not.
But of course, who needs to know about history, about gerontology, or the truth about human aging? Just turn on your TV and watch "America's Got Talent" and let the mindless display begin.74.237.28.5 05:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok, why don't you add WP: POINT to the list of 'offenses'. The below article was started by David Allen Lambert himself, using a sockpuppet, and the sources listed don't seem to satisfy any of the suddenly much-higher requirements now cited for 'this' article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Allen_Lambert
Yet no one nominated that article for deletion, and his 'claim to fame' seemed to be 'discovering/verifying' the age of a single individual...the 'oldest living baseball player.' Yet I find multiple individuals, year in, year out, and that amounts to 'triviality'? Case not made.
But to me the biggest point seems to be how the 'rules' on Wikipedia are selectively enforced, and decisions which should be made by impartial observers often are the result of 'edit-warring' instead...sadly, humanity favors emotion over logic. Further, it seems that 'assertions of notability' are often made by the Wikipedians themselves...akin to having '10,000 friends' on MySpace.
I actually contributed to Wikipedia for more than a year before I started my own 'user ID/talk' page. Wikipedia is a TOOL and the goal should be to educate the world with impartiality and fairness. The assertion that I should 'sit on my hands' and do/say nothing seems silly, especially when uninformed comments are made (i.e. 'no proof of X or Y') when a simple search of Google would show that you can't find one factual assertion to be in error.
I do believe the article would stand alone if an impartial third-party observer came along and commented (or started the article). However, I understand that stacked deck situations usually result in 'sinking'...it's why politicians result to political scandal in the weeks leading up to an election.Ryoung122 20:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but I see that as a weakness in both humanity and Wikipedia; objectivity is rarely achieved on AFD.Ryoung122 21:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the Guinness Book of World Records stated in numerous editions from the 1960s to the 1980s, "No single subject is more obscured by vanity, deceit, falsehood, and deliberate fraud than the extremes of human longevity."
Hence Guinness World Records has long considered the 'oldest person' records to be among the most prestigious but also the most difficult to verify/research of any record...in part because 'we are all at it' (anyone could CLAIM to be the world's oldest person). Hence, the topic is much more than a typical 'Guinness researcher'. Yet I could cite others...experts on the tallest tree (Steve Sillett) or twins (Craig and Mark Sanders), for example. In my view, if someone contributes a new understanding/way of thinking about a subject in a scientific manner, than it is far more than simply an issue of 'position.'
Second, I also note that user Calgary is involved in the species integration dispute, so once again we see possible conflicts of interest.
Third, one reason I created this article is because the Wiki: AUTO policy stated that, although strongly discouraged, it is not expressly forbidden. If this is not the case, the policy needs to be re-written to state as much.
Perhaps the most important argument, however, is that I am more than just the researcher for the toughest record in the best-selling book of all time. If that were the case, you wouldn't find my name in thousands of citations, such as:
Results 1 - 10 of about 46,700 for Robert+Young+Louis+Epstein+Jean-Marie+Robine. (0.12 seconds)
Deaths for 2003 as of January 16, 20041, 1893, June 1, 2003, 110, 151, W, F, Louis Epstein/Robert Young, ########, ######## ... 7, 2003, 112, 146, W, F, Jean-Marie Robine/Laurent Toussaint ... www.grg.org/Adams/Deaths2003.HTM - 97k - Cached - Similar pages
2004 Deaths, as of February 15, 200711, 2004, 110, 12, W, F, Jean-Marie Robine/Peter Goldblatt. 11, England (UK), England (UK) .... 21, 2004, 112, 27, W, F, Louis Epstein/Robert Young ... www.grg.org/Adams/Deaths2004.HTM - 45k - Cached - Similar pages [ More results from www.grg.org ]
Aging: The Reality: Demography of Human Supercentenarians -- Coles ...1, 1890, Living, 113*, W, M, Robert Young/Louis Epstein .... 7, 2003, 112, 146, W, F, Jean-Marie Robine/Laurent Toussaint ... biomed.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/content/full/59/6/B579/TA1 - Similar pages
[PDF] Table of World-Wide Living SupercentenariansFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat Jean-Marie Robine. Delvina Dahlheimer. U.S. (MN). Dec. 31, 1888. Mar. 13, 2002. 113. 72. w. f. Louis Epstein/Robert Young. Antonio Todde ... www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/10945450260195667 - Similar pages
[PDF] Supercentenarians Tables Validated Supercentenarian Cases Aged 114 ...File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat Jean-Marie Robine/. Robert Young. tie. U.S. (IL). Wilhelmina Kott .... piled for publication by Mr. Louis Epstein of. New York and Mr. Robert Young of ... www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/rej.2006.9.503 - Similar pages [ More results from www.liebertonline.com ]
[PDF] Workshop on Supercentenarians, May 8 2002 Atlanta, GeorgiaFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML 9:15 a.m. --- Jean-Marie Robine: “The Emergence of Supercentenarians in Low Mortality. Countries”. 9:45 a.m. --- Robert Young: “Problems with ... www.demogr.mpg.de/calendar/files/15716.951751709-Workshop%20Program.pdf - Similar pages
[PDF] AgendaFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML 9:00 a.m. --- Robert Young: “Age 115 and Beyond: A Closer Look At American Cases”. 9:20 a.m. --- Louis Epstein: “Observed Life Expectancy of ... www.demogr.mpg.de/calendar/files/51736.8836975098-Workshop%20Program.pdf - Similar pages
Wikipedia:WikiProject Academics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaLouis Epstein and Robert Young. JSTOR: The World Trend in Maximum Life SpanJOHN R. WILMOTH / JEAN-MARIE ROBINE to the Swedish trend in the maximum age at ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academics - 153k - Cached - Similar pages
Robert Young (gerontologist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJean-Marie Robine of France, validator of the Jeanne Calment case, is working with ... Unlike Louis Epstein, Young has provided a list of credits for each ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Young_(gerontologist) - 29k - Cached - Similar pages
[PDF] Emergence of Supercentenarians in Low Mortality CountriesFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML the internet by Louis Epstein with the help of Robert Young ..... England and Wales, by France Meslé and Jacques Vallin (INED) and Jean-Marie Robine ... user.demogr.mpg.de/jwv/pdf/AmActJournal2002.pdf - Similar pages
Galileo wasn't popular, either, because he espoused views--such as heliocentrism--that contradicted the establishment of the day. Perhaps the best argument for the need for articles on both supercentenarians and supercentenarian researchers is the public's lack of understanding of the subject. 74.237.28.5 05:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do have a degree in gerontology from Georgia State University. However, if it makes everyone happy, we can 'rename' this to Robert Young (longevity claims researcher). Even though I do more than that in both gerontology and other fields (I have two degrees in history, so I could be an 'historian' as well), it is what I am best-known for.74.237.28.5 07:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From reading this discussion, and following the links and references, it seems that this page is far too autobiographical in nature, though I wouldn't see too much of a problem if it was rebuilt with more reliable sources without any autobiographical help.Ravenmasterq 23:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I find this situation funny. In my opinion, this article is just about as notable as Angela Beesley (e.g., being a spokesperson or founder of a notable organization, but the notability of the person itself is disputed). However, Beesley article was kept, after six attempts for deletion, despite the subject's wishes to have her article deleted. But now we have an article that is likely to be deleted despite the subject's wishes to keep it! Are we doing it just to spite people? Is this a punishment for breaking the autobiography taboo, which is not even a policy? It shouldn't matter who wrote the article or whether there is a conflict of interest or not. What should matter is whether the article is verifiable and the topic notable enough. Nothing else matters. --Itub 07:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Canuckle. Robertissimo 08:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. CitiCat ♫ 01:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unsourced except for non-inline, self published non-RS links, WP:BIO. OTRS 2007072510017517. Previous AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/kamla bhatt -- Jeandré, 2007-07-30t11:53z
The result was keep. Sr13 is almost Singularity 04:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
makes no claim to be notable, but has been around since jan 2006 so maybe I'm missning something Moglex 21:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt Breather supersolid means anything - no references, sounds dubious, and search engines have nothing to back it up. Been here since May 2006 Moglex 00:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by DerHexer. Whispering 11:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page name was created in a page move by myself, and was later found to be named incorrectly (see Talk:Chester (district)#Renaming for details of the discussion including copies of an official letter confirming the correct name for the subject of this article.) It has had its contents recently successfully moved by an administrator to Chester (district), which has preserved all its editing history. There are no important links to this page any more (I have changed them all to avoid a double-redirect problem), and the page with its associated talk page is now superfluous. This page deletion is one of the final steps needed to fully correct an error concerning the entire naming of this part of the UK on wikipedia. DDStretch (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no assertion of why it is notable. Reads more like an advert. Russavia 18:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Originally siphoned off from the Nightclub article, this essay discussing the pros and cons of various approaches to locating a nightclub appears to be entirely original research meco 15:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect, no real content to be merged. What there is already would suffice. Sr13 is almost Singularity 21:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no assertion of why it is notable. Reads more like an advert. Russavia 18:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no referenced assertions of why it is notable. All hotels have an award or two or twelve. Outside of awards there is nothing notable about this hotel, just the same as having a good review in Zagats doesn't need inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Russavia 18:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no referenced assertions of why it is notable. Russavia 19:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Australian heavy metal band, who has released 1 album of 1000 copies (not on a label), and is currently on hiatus. No references establish claims of notability, fails WP:MUSIC. Was already nominated for deletion here and was deleted. I'm also nominating pages on the band members for deletion: Fast Eddie Fast and Jake Van Gyna, and their first band that also fails WP:MUSIC, The Loose Cannons (band). Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 18:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 04:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no referenced assertions of why it is notable. Reads like an advertisement Russavia 19:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as blatant coi spam. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 19:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of third party coverage, except for a solitary pay-per-view article. Non-notable company. Confirmed (non-obvious) corporate vanity, see WP:COIN#Joseph Di Virgilio. MER-C 10:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sr13 is almost Singularity 04:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prod with reason: "Non-notable woman. Dying in a car collision does not raise her to notability required of the encyclopedia." Yet references indicate that this woman has achieved nobility within civil rights due the reasons of her death. Also there has been a book written on her: [47]. There appear to be reasons for a wider debate. My posting is neutral. SilkTork 10:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete both. Sr13 is almost Singularity 04:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
not encyclopaedic and not generally true Xorkl000 10:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because it has exactly the same problem (and the same substantial author):
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 04:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really can't find anything on this guy to indicate notability, other than the standard music-sales sites. The article was previously deleted through prod, but this was disputed by recreation, so bringing it here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable language 348 unique Ghits, most of whose "Ayolas" are names or surnames or people. Only sources appear to be self published. Ohconfucius 10:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected to Bad Girls (TV series). ELIMINATORJR 23:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable Youtube film, without reference to reliable sources. Scores a pityful 23 unique Ghits. Ohconfucius 10:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. I would think that this many "keep" votes in a short amount of time warrants a WP:SNOW closure. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 22:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect to the veterans, I think this list has many problems. Original research for instance, because this list defines its own subject, instead of using primary, secondary or tertiary sources. It also offers totals in the end which, imho, cannot be sourced. All this requires a constant monitoring, and leads me to think this is better served by a category. Errabee 09:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted by User:DerHexer (A7, no assertion of notability). Non-admin closure Hut 8.5 10:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, no reliable sources, probably a conflict of interest. Google reveals nothing except blogs and forums. Huon 09:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 03:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google gives no results for "Parasite Eve: Extinction" and no relevant results for "Parasite Eve 4". Article was created by a new account. Parasite Eve 3 doesn't even exist (there's a mobile game "The 3rd Birthday", but no PE3 officially), so this article's name is incredibly off. It's a hoax. Kariteh 09:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 03:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I previously proposed this article for deletion, but the proposal was objected. Even after the objection, I don't think that it is notable/verifyable enough, and there is nothing which links to the article from another article. It might be useful, but I fail to see a fixed point on the word.
(PS. That I forgot to include the edit summary while fitting in ((subst:afd1)), hopefully it won't matter.) ~Iceshark7 09:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. CitiCat ♫ 02:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article's subject is about an un-official bootleg that was, apparently, only sold in Germany. While some bootlegs may be notable to a band's recording or live performance history, this one has no redeeming features and shouldn't be recorded on Wikipedia. MrHate 08:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. —« ANIMUM » 20:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website. While Benfer has his fans (who have tried again and again to shove his information into Wikipedia, nearly all search returns are for blog mentions, bulletin board postings, and/or video sharing sites. No reputable third party sources have written about this series. Delete MikeWazowski 08:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a1 empty, g1 hoax. Why do people insist on posting fake film articles? NawlinWiki 16:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Almost certainly a hoax none of the main Movie sites have any mention of this film. X201 08:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another unsourced future UFC event. Crystalballing, no verifable information; precedent from several other AfDs. east.718 07:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete g6 (duplicate), r3 (unlikely redirect to John Charles Thomas, no incoming links). NawlinWiki 16:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No record of such a person's existence; strong likelihood that this refers to baritone John Charles Thomas as many of the details correspond lone_twin 07:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Deleted as a copyright violation. the_undertow talk 08:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
indiscernible mess. unencyclopedic. Smite it. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete all a7, no credible assertion of notability, no sources. NawlinWiki 16:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A band that has no notability, let alone being a "Super Group" No hits on google eitherGorkymalorki 07:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this band and its non-notable members. Cack is the right word for this article. Totnesmartin 10:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, redirect to Matthew McGrory. NawlinWiki 16:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About a musician with dubious notability. No sources, fails WP:V, I smell a hoax Rackabello 07:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Jaranda wat's sup 21:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another article on a NN mall, probabaly CSD criteria, but want some input. No sources other than simon.com and the barber shop blog, fails WP:V. Rackabello 06:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 07:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 03:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This term was coined on some guy's blog, and is not in general use. I'd bet it is not in use anywhere except on that blog. Doubtless the guy likes to toot his own horn. Speciate 06:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by Edgar181. Whispering 11:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this article is a hoax, I have searched for anything about it to no avail. Gorkymalorki 06:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 03:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A youth player, made a appearance for friendly not count for a criteria of a professional player, neither just received a senior call up to FA Cup and did not play. Matthew_hk tc 06:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete, just change bits that aren't correct. This is a real player.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.241.95 (talk • contribs) — 172.202.241.95 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was delete, no compelling reason to keep this A7 (although perhaps salvageable with sources etc.) against the subject's wishes. Kusma (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The person this article is about has requested it be deleted for personal reasons Charleswilliamlee 05:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sr13 is almost Singularity 03:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NN company who's article doesn't provide sources. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 04:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Software does not appear to be notable according to Google [54]. --Uthbrian (talk) 04:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 03:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it was a bit better than the two line entry that was recently deleted but Non-notable school, reads like an advertisement. Peter Rehse 04:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected to Fairy Tail Villains. ELIMINATORJR 00:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eisenwald Guild has no reason to have it's own page. I moved the information contained here to the Fairy Tail Villains page. Jinkapo 04:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep — Caknuck 21:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since the last AfD in April, nothing in the article has changed. I have nothing to say about the actual topic of how many nails were used in Christ's crucifixion, I merely feel that this particular term isn't really a notable term used to describe three nails being used instead of four. The Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Holy Nails doesn't use the term, and this single Anglican author and creator of the word from the 19th century seems to be the only reliable source anyone has found so far that mentions this specific term. There may be a word that describes the belief that Jesus was crucified with three nails, but so far, it appears this term definently did not catch on as the word, at least not in any reliable source. At best, maybe some of this material should be merged with the word's creator, George Stanley Faber, but for now, I really don't understand why this should be a separate article, if an article at all. Nextly, the "Keep" arguments in the last AfD really didn't seem to me to actually argue for an article on this specific term, User:DGG's and User:Andrel's criticisms would only apply I think if the entire Holy Nails topic was being deleted itself, (And thus deleting the "iconological and the theological aspects" of the topic) and every other "Keep" argument seemed to be either an appeal to WP:INTERESTING or an attempt to ignore Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Homestarmy 04:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Last time, I said "keep-- Both the iconological and the theological aspects are of historic importance; that these questions may not seem to be of much importance to some of us now is just an indicator of presentism." I now see I was wrong. They are indeed important, and were WP not interested in them it would be an example of presentism, but this article under discussion is hopeless as a serious discussion. The first step in improving it would be to remove the entire quotation which makes up 90% of the article. I'm not very impressed by what the old Catholic encyclopedia says about the subject either, there's been a lot of discoveries and a lot of work since then--for one thing, it is clear that in the one known actual skeletal example, two nails were used for the feet, one on either side of the stem of the cross. Redirect to crucifixion--not that it's a very good article itself, but it's better than this, and the word is already present there.DGG (talk) 06:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, arguments for keeping are mostly refuted and are not based in policies or guidelines. --Coredesat 05:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable enough maybe? It did appear at many film festivals tough, according to the official site. The problem is the lack of external references beside IMD b. Kl4m 04:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability. This is an unfunded project/idea that has gotten very little press coverage. Douglasmtaylor T/C 03:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 03:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn fundraiser, akin to a concert, is each concert notable? contested speedy, would be a contested prod as well, no doubt, so here it is. Carlossuarez46 03:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. CitiCat ♫ 22:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Originally tagged as speedy candidate under criterion G11. That might be a bit of a stretch, though not by much. Still, maybe an AfD will turn up somebody who's wiling to clean this up and include actual reliable third-party sources that establish the subject's notability. Failing that, I'm all for deletion. Pascal.Tesson 03:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put up this article and am very new to Wikipedia so if I get a little time I will correct it and clearly put in all the references for the statements made. I am sorry if my inexperience has caused a problem but I will make all the alterations. Michkr1 03:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand the objections and all I ask is a day or two to supply the requisite references. As I say I am new to this and so some of the required formats are new to me but I am working to get it as required. It will of course then be up to the community to judge. Again I do please ask for a little time to comply. Thanks. Michkr1 11:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to thank people for their patience with my newness to the medium. I have the new version almost finished. Waiting for permissions to use direct quotes from notable people involved in Kellie's story. Michkr1 13:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will be putting up a new version in the next 48 hours and would welcome all comments. Michkr1 05:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. With regard to the references there are facsimilies of all the references at the KellieEverts website but although this was stated in first draft the comments stated references were needed. Any help here would be very useful. Should I just make a statement with the Kellie URL? I would like to change the name to Kellie Everts but am not sure how to do so. This is my first attempt here. I will check all spelling again. Michkr1 13:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete g7, author agrees to deletion (see below). NawlinWiki 16:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Previously prodded, removed by author, still, I think the lack of third-party sources covering this wiki in any form makes it dubious for an article. See WP:WEB for appropriate standards. FrozenPurpleCube 01:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Wizardman 02:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. There are no secondary sources asserting to the importance of this educational organization, and it is mostly based on original research into this school's history. The article's purpose is self-advertisement, it is often vandalized by disgruntled students, and it clearly does not belong in an encyclopedia. Guillermo Otálora Lozano 01:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. The problematic components of this entry should addressed through normal editorial process, outside of AfD. El_C 19:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
uncontested prod, but some editors think that these sort of articles merit keeping, so I'll bring it here rather than just delete as expired prod; Note: the German WP has an article on this, and given our Monicagate on this side of the pond, I'll take no position, but we should discuss it. Carlossuarez46 01:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 02:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
uncontested prod, but some editors think that these sort of articles merit keeping, so I'll bring it here rather than just delete as expired prod; IMHO delete as fancruft. Carlossuarez46 01:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 02:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
uncontested prod, but national on-air personalities should probably go through Afd rather than prod. Carlossuarez46 01:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, though, if nothing further can be found to expand this beyond a stub, then eventual merging isn't out of the question. But you don't need AfD to hash that out. — TKD::Talk 11:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
uncontested prod, but deletion of high school articles is controversial so I'll bring it here. IMHO, there is no assertion of notability in this article and so it should be deleted. Carlossuarez46 01:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 02:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
uncontested prod, but from the articles on his teams, I can't tell whether they are fully professional or what, some folks with knowledge of English football/soccer should weigh in. Carlossuarez46 01:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. --Coredesat 05:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
uncontested prod, but likely to be controversial or of interested to the broader community, so instead of deleting, I bring it here. Personally, I don't think being the parent or other relative of someone notable gives one notability, but I know others here probably disagree on that point and there are lots of other famous "moms" and "dads" articles, so let's talk it out. Carlossuarez46 01:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Band appears to be notable, but the album lacks substantial independent coverage, as noted below. Albums of notable bands are not automatically notable. Relevant details (e.g. track listing) can be merged into band article, per WP:MUSIC#Albums. MastCell Talk 22:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability. Band's article was recently deleted. —« ANIMUM » 00:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete If the band is not notable, neither is their album. the_undertow talk 00:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as blatant advertisement. Pascal.Tesson 02:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Page doesn't make any sense, doesn't make any sense and isn't notable Lewispb 01:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 10:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know I'm doing a lot of AfD's today, but I"m doing my research first. This is just another non-notable dead mall that fails WP:RS and WP:V. Page has been mostly the same from the start, with no references or significant info being added. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 01:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. I think all are agreed a great deal of clean up is carried out, and if this doesn't take place, no prejudice towards re-evaluating this article in a subsequent AFD. Neil ╦ 12:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what isn't indiscriminate and loosely or unassociated info is original research. A list of every time a Gnostic idea supposedly appears in a work of fiction tells us nothing about the ideas or the fiction in which they appear. Oppose merging nything to any other Gnosticism article. Otto4711 00:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. ELIMINATORJR 10:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Directory of loosely associated items. These references of greater or lesser triviality drawn from, well, anywhere that someone in a robe and a bald cap wig shows up in anything, tells us nothing about Hare Krishna, nothing about the things the references are drawn from, nothing about their relation to each other and nothing about the real world. Oppose any merger of any of this to any other Hare Krishna article. Otto4711 00:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as a separate subject; optionally merge some content to Robert Prechter. Redirecting there in the meantime.
Discussion. — This is a very unwieldy discussion, so for the sake of efficiency I am simply discounting anything written by Rgfolsom (talk · contribs), who is being paid to promote and defend Robert Prechter's concept of "socionomics" and has a conflict of interest. As volunteer editors, we are simply not playing in the same league as he.
For the reasons laid out at WP:ATA, I am also discounting the pure votes of Chrislk02, Rocksanddirt, Jossi and Piotrus (keep) as well as Sdedeo, Ghirlandajo and Orangemike (delete).
The remainder of the discussion circulates around whether "socionomics" is a sufficiently notable topic of discourse, as measured through the extent of its coverage by suitable reliable sources. Given the ream of citations that have been provided, it is appropriate to gauge consensus on the basis of those editors who indicate in their comments that they have actually attempted to check up the sources, and discounting those who simply say "it has many sources" (JulesH, Alansohn, Robertknyc) or "it's a fraud / it's COI" (Realkyhick, Gavin Collins, Smerdis of Tlön, Guy, Haemo)
Based on the editors who say that they have looked more closely at the sources, we have a preponderance of opinion to delete (trialsanderrors, THF, EdJohnston, Cool Hand Luke, John Carter, Ministry) versus keep (N2e, BenB4, Sposer). Other policy-substiantiated opinions for deletion include those of TheOtherBob and Calton. This is a determinative consensus to delete.
Finally, several editors advocate a strongly reduced merge to Robert Prechter, which does not appear to contradict the present consensus outlined above, i.e., the topic is insufficiently notable for its own article. Accordingly, I am closing this debate as a "delete", but I am redirecting the article to Robert Prechter to allow for a merger to take place, if consensus should develop among editors for such a move. Sandstein 07:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recreation of an article that was deleted after the first AfD. The text is sufficiently different to require a second AfD, but the fundamental problems are unchanged: CoI-authored article on a financial neologism with insufficient currency in the financial market literature, essentially trying to piggyback on the emergent behavioral finance literature (e.g. Robert Shiller) to create the impression that this is a notable new concept in finance. The evidence (keeping in mind that contemporary finance produces massive amounts of academic and professional literature} is still extremely sparse and most sources are either unrelated or lead back to Robert Prechter and his Socionomics Institute. In short, a big smokescreen for a fringe concept with the flimsiest of scientific backing. ~ trialsanderrors 00:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Editors who read the article and the facts below can judge for themselves whether the evidence is “sparse.” They can also decide if dozens of sources (not related to Prechter) can in fact amount to “a big smokescreen.”
The administrator who closed the AfD said it was "principally about whether 'Socionomics' is -- currently -- a sufficiently notable scientific concept (or term) to be included in Wikipedia." When challenged regarding "scientific concept," he said: "At issue was not mainly WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR, but whether the subject was notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, or whether it was a nonnotable neologism used almost exclusively (and promoted by) your employer."[61]
Thus the two relevant criterion are notability and neologism:
The evidence below shows “significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject,” including “results published in a peer-reviewed journal” and in “reputable news outlets.”
Books with a non-trivial mention of socionomics
Peer-reviewed journal papers dedicated to socionomics
University lectures and Conference papers/presentations
Further academic recognition of socionomics
Reliable and extensive secondary source coverage of socionomics
Search engine A Google search for "socionomics" brings some 52,000 results -- and those exclude results from elliottwave.com, socionomics.net, and socionomics.org. Around 2,300 of the Google search results are non-English language, thus socionomics has some international notability.
Socionomics in practice
--Rgfolsom 05:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that an article was wrongly deleted, you can recreate the article. If you do decide to recreate it, pay careful attention to the reasons that were proffered for deletion. Overcome the objections, and show that your new, improved work meets Wikipedia article policies….If you manage to improve on the earlier version of the article and overcome its (perceived) shortcomings, the new article cannot be speedily deleted, and any attempt to remove it again must be settled before the community, on AFD.
The socionomic model of social causality posits four principles regarding self-organized, complex human systems:
1. In contexts of uncertainty, people share an unconscious impulse to herd which is manifested in social mood trends;
2. These social mood trends reflect self-similar fractal patterns and thus are predictable within a range of probabilities;
3. Endogenous processes (not exogenous causes) create these patterns of collective behavior; and
4. Social mood trends both cause and govern the character of social actions in financial markets, economic production, fashions, politics, climates for peace and war, and other domains.
strike me as the sort of jargonized, heavily abstract, buzzword-laden prose I have so much fun with here. Stated in plain English, it seems to say that societies have mood swings and that these mood swings affect the behaviour of people in them. This is as insightful as Miss Anne Elk's theory about the Brontosaurus. We have blindingly obvious platitudes given a thick coating of Latinate words to give them the appearance of rigour and conceal their obviousness. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]Delete as neologism, moving desired content into behavioral finance, social mood, or prechter articles as necessary. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 17:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Emotions exert a significant influence on financial behavior. The "socionomic hypothesis" posits social mood, the collective mood of individuals, as a primary causal variable in financial and social trends. In order to provide a scientific basis for the study of social mood, this article reviews psychological research on major mood-related elements of personality: affect, motivation, and personality traits.
Comment The term is clearly notable, but the article may not tell the full story. A 1986 review of The Moral Order (1983, by Raoul Narroll) states that "The method of looking for a better society is named 'socionomics'." I don't have access to the book, but I wonder if either Narroll or Veenhoven (the reviewer) refer to Prechter's work (doubt it), or if the term had an established meaning already. The term was also mentioned in 1965 in "Towards a Synthetization of the Sciences" by Matthew L. Lamb, apparently to denote a cross of sociology and geology. – Therefore, I'd rather have a better article than a redirect to Prechter as if he owned the term. Rl 13:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. --Coredesat 05:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no sources = nn Will (talk) 02:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 02:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a glorified list, which should have that in the title. Aside from that, it's a long list that needs a lot of maintenance and isn't verified. It fails WP:NOR. Delete GreenJoe 03:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki 16:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a giant ad. No proof this University actually operates. Fails WP:NOR. Delete GreenJoe 04:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Almost everything in here is mentioned in the plot summary in Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Characters in Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time. — Malcolm (talk) 04:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Named settlements are generally notable, needs expanding. ELIMINATORJR 10:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a small area in Ireland, with a few businesses. It may even be a housing estate, but I can't tell - I beseech Irish Wikipedians to comment, and prove me wrong. Moglex 01:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 01:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A small brewery in Wales - no claim of notability, but there are quite a few breweries with articles on Wikipedaia, this might be an issue for Deletion Review Moglex 00:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 01:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Claims to be a famous restaurant in Germant, but there's nothing in the article to differ it from the average kebab house Moglex 00:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks more like it would qualify for a "speedy delete" as not even asserting notability. On a personal note being from Munich - I'd rather go to Nürnberg if I'd want a decent Bratwurst Agathoclea 15:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Had a read through the article, and through WP:BAND, but nothing clicks - non-notable label, small tour, no charting, no appearances in other media, no famous members of band Moglex 00:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was: Speedy deleted under G11 - Spam - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like an advert, or was written by someone in this church community. 2000 ppl in a congregation doesn't make it notable Moglex 00:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. I do understand the concerns of the sourcing and they should be adressed. But references should be abundant (at least in French) and this is not sufficient grounds for outright deletion so prematurely, especially since nobody is disputing that the subject itself is ok. The fact that edit wars might come from this article is also not an argument for deletion. Pascal.Tesson 07:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, yes I know that the author of this had a huge task translating all of this. However, there are many problems here: number one - the French Wikipedia is not a reliable source. number two - don't trust anything on Breton nationalism from French Wikipedia, as there's been a hugh polemic about it there. Thirdly, it is completely unsourced. Fourthly, (minor point) the title is wrong - should be Breton nationalism during World War Two or Breton nationalism in World War Two. And nextly, it is one of Wonderfool's creations, and (s)he's a bit of scoundrel too. Moglex 23:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. ELIMINATORJR 10:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable ceremony Moglex 22:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This crappy article has been here since June 2006, and contains raw text about British Columbia, about a few species of bear, and about how few forests are left in the world. All in all, it is redundant. This has slipped through the Wikipedia quality-control net (as with hundreds of articles I'm in the process of AFDing. Moglex 22:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected to Bootsy's Rubber Band. NawlinWiki 17:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm missing something, but there's no trace of this band on the www Moglex 22:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep and move to Boone Trail. --Coredesat 06:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda cool, following in the footsteps of Mr Boone, but this "event" seems to be just a fad. OK, so it is incredibly cool, the sort of thing I'd do, but Google doesn't like it! Moglex 21:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete, A7.Chaser - T 00:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An underground foortnightly Belgian radio show - the tone of the article is so informal it doesn't seem to be worth researchin further Moglex 21:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep, WP:SNOW, yes, lakes are notable. NawlinWiki 17:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of many lakes in Norway. Lakes are notable right? Just checking Moglex 21:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge relevant material into Amiga and redirect. MastCell Talk 22:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So this unsourced orphaned page is about a computer screen-saver? OK, so it was a kind of "unofficial" logo of Aminga which might be important, but this info belongs at Amiga if anywhere Moglex 21:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, notable per WP:BIO for sportspeople. ELIMINATORJR 00:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Raced a couple of formula 3 races, does that make him notable enough? I'm guessing it's on a par with formula One test drivers, and some of them have their own article Moglex 21:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No, he doesn't. Daniel→♦ 05:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Played 5 games for the North Sydney Bears in the 1930s? The guy must do more to get a Wikipeida article Moglex 21:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, defaulting to Keep. ELIMINATORJR 10:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to borderline importance i.e. a few years ago would never have made it in, but now the boundaries have been blurred who knows? It deals with a radio show making a splash in a (to be fair, reasonably-sized) community in USA. Moglex 21:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, even the nomination suggests merging rather than deletion. NawlinWiki 00:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly merge to Hydraulic manifold. I'm not familiar with this subject matter, but there's glaring notability concerns Moglex 20:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 01:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is Bibi the Child-Strangler real? Or is this a hoax article Moglex 19:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep — Caknuck 22:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jelly robots? Appeared in one publication of new Scientist? By a scientist who's not even famous enough for Wikipeda? Moglex 19:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Kinghorn. No consensus to delete, but no article can be sustained in the absence of independent sources.
A small tiny running race in a small crappy village in Scotland (Kinghorn) - not nearly famous enough for Wikipedia Moglex 19:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 01:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No signs this ever existed Moglex 19:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not-notable enough for own article. Moglex 19:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, defaulting to Keep. ELIMINATORJR 10:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is all bullshit. It is just part of the name of a Rutman book. Been here since October 2005 too Moglex 19:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 01:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable autobiography written by a non-notable person who himself hasn't even got a Wikipedia page. Been on Wikipedia since March 3 2005 Moglex 19:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Brachylaima. Singularity 01:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this was real, had a little search, and the only links were to Wikimirrors and, err, bisexual porn sites. A shame for us Moglex 00:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. If you want to keep track of Barry's progress, the article's creator is keeping an updated, userfied version at User:TonyTheTiger/Barry Bonds home run watch. — Caknuck 22:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is nothing more than an overly detailed list of statistics that is not going to be of encyclopedic interest to anybody in two month, little yet in two years. Wikipedia is not WikiNews, and we ought not be recording every minute of this. Phil Sandifer 12:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- BillCJ 18:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. No consensus to do anything has been established, although merging can be discussed on the various talk pages since it is an editorial decision. --Coredesat 06:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hopeless WP:OR and listcruft which has no place on Wikipedia. Will (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FilmThe Dursleys leave their house at Number 4, Privet Drive to escape the horde of owls delivering letters to Harry. They travel to a place called the Railview Hotel, but are soon bombarded with the same letters. They move to a desolate hut on a rock, far out to sea, when Rubeus Hagrid breaks down the door on July 31, Harry's birthday, and hand-delivers the letter, an acceptance letter to the Hogwarts school. Hagrid takes Harry shopping for his supplies at Diagon Alley, and returns Harry to the Dursleys for about a month before he is to board the Hogwarts Express on September 1.
You can't just copy huge exerts from the book, or a script. I can't verify that they aren't word for word copies, which would be even worse then simply writing it yourself with such details. You need reliably published sources that discuss the differences in the novels and explain why they are important. Anyone can quote a site the lists all the differences. This is merely an indiscriminate collection of copyrighted information. Not only are you not even citing the novel and film (which wouldn't help the situation other than proving that's where you got it), but nothing says why any of this actually matters, except maybe to fans of the books. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]The Dursleys leave their house at Number 4, Privet Drive to escape the horde of owls delivering letters to Harry. They travel to a desolate hut on a rock, far out to sea, when Rubeus Hagrid breaks down the door on July 31, Harry's birthday, and hand-delivers the letter, an acceptance letter to the Hogwarts school. Hagrid takes Harry shopping for his supplies at Diagon Alley. It is assumed they spend the time at The Leaky Cauldron before he is to board the Hogwarts Express on September 1.
The result was delete. Singularity 01:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sketchy notability, poorly written Will (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus to delete, rename to more accurate title recommended. Until(1 == 2) 15:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#DIR, WP:NOT#INFO Will (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete: I think yet another list article isnt the right way forward. We already haveList of shopping centres in the United Kingdom. I think List of shopping centres in the United Kingdom could also, perhaps also do with a little bit of trimming down. How many of the centres mentioned are truely notable? Perhaps one way to go would be to divide off the shopping centres with over say 1m sq ft of retail floor space in List of shopping centres in the United Kingdom into their own section within that article. Pit-yacker 21:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge & redirect. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Failed candidate. Non-notable. Fails WP:BIO. Delete GreenJoe 20:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge & redirect. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Failed candidate. Article fails WP:BIO and WP:NOR. Delete GreenJoe 20:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Consensus to keep. Until(1 == 2) 15:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Failed candidate. Fails WP:BIO. Delete GreenJoe 20:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 14:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article fails WP:BIO and WP:NOR. Failed candidate. Delete GreenJoe 20:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC) I am amicable with Merge. GreenJoe 04:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep — Caknuck 22:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Failed candidate. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOR. Delete GreenJoe 20:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep — Caknuck 22:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's a big nobody! Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOR. Delete GreenJoe 20:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per unanimous vote except the nom. Non-admin closure.--JForget 15:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Failed candidate. Fails WP:BIO. Delete GreenJoe 20:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It meets just enough the notability criteria, if not kept it certainly certainly merits a large mention must be mentioned in her husband's article due to reasons explained below.--JForget 00:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non notable website--004p 20:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus. CitiCat ♫ 23:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO. Delete GreenJoe 20:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep — Caknuck 22:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOR. Delete GreenJoe 20:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep the content in some form. As always, interested editors can further discuss merging versus retaining a separate article, but that doesn't require an AfD. — TKD::Talk 10:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's a big nobody! Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOR. Delete GreenJoe 21:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to New Democratic Party candidates, 1993 Canadian federal election. This seems to be the consensus for candidates for the Canadian House of Commons for the major parties. --YUL89YYZ 23:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep — Caknuck 22:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not Notable, they are just a one market radio show. If they were in numerous radio markets then that would be notable. This site should not include every local radio show in the country, just the well known national ones. Hndsmepete 23:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]