The result was speedy close; duplicate nomination. Non-admin closure. PC78 (talk) 01:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable person. KMFDM FAN (talk!) 01:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Flowerparty☀ 23:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a newsite and it unlikely this crash will have any lasting encyclopedic value. ThaddeusB (talk) 23:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ORG, google news found nothing [2], google search yields mainly mirror sites. LibStar (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was A7 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not establish notability, especially the important factors like charted songs/coverage in secondary sources. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Anal Cunt. Flowerparty☀ 23:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced list, redundant to Anal Cunt. Can be summarized in main article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a legitimate list, in line with others of a similar nature. No reason to list for deletion; a "citations needed" tag would have been more appropriate. Andre666 (talk) 09:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was WP:SNOW delete --JForget 23:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Author of one book of dubious notability, appeared in a made for TV movie as "green eyed girl." Is currently appearing in a reality show, for which no participants have articles (including from the previous winner). In short, no reliable secondary sources discuss this topic in any detail. This article was created by the request of the subject with the promise of a $75 dollar payment [3]. --Leivick (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2009
The result was Speedy deleted as hoax. – iridescent 22:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
De prodded. I think it's a dance step, but it's hard to tell exactly. No indications of notability, and even if I were to include the google hits for the phrase, it's common enough that there's no indication it's what's being talked about here. Shadowjams (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Flowerparty☀ 23:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Only claims to notability are (1) dancer in an R. Kelly video, and (2) former "Miss Vietnam Budweiser Girl". She's also been employed by several notable artists, but in an apparently non-noteworthy capacity. Hairhorn (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator DGG (talk) 03:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Supposed ghost town in Kansas, but can't find any sources for its existence. The GNIS reveals nothing, even though it records long-gone ghost towns. Google produces plenty of results, but virtually all are for Elk County or Elk City, or the standard "Divorce lawyers in Elk, Kansas" etc.; nothing substantive is there. Nyttend (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Flowerparty☀ 23:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable publication. A bit of coverage on Facebook, Twitter, and Digg, but no reliable sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Speedy closing... deletion is obviously not an issue here, it's either a keep or a merge with reorganizing the content. But this should be discuss at the talkpages. Tone 22:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need for an article for a single game. It can easily be merged into 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup knockout stage, even after it happens. That subarticle of 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup details the four final games of the tournament and does not be split into three and one. There is no worry about length because 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup Group A and 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup Group B each cover six games. People just want to have all the information in one place and not have to keep going to subarticles. Reywas92Talk 21:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The final should have its own page, like many other finals have. However, I believe we should delete 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup knockout stage. The tournament's knockout stage isn't as long as in other competitions (usually 7 or 15 games), and its article contains very little information. RaLo18 (talk with me • my contributions) 21:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. per WP:SNOW Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think that something like this warrants an entry in Wikipedia. Is it really encyclopedic? MacMedtalkstalk 20:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Flowerparty☀ 23:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence that this website or the alleged controversy generated by it is notable. Possibly a thinly-veiled attack article. Wikipedia is not a forum for muckraking. Kinu t/c 20:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was snowball speedy delete as a blatant advertisment and failing WP:RS and WP:N. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was seemingly started as an autobiography. The person does not seem to be at all notable and I see no reason for inclusion. At the moment it reads like a CV/advert and I can't see how this could be changed Smartse (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I need a rationale to SNOW close this? Really? I think not. I would suggest that the creator of the article seriously thinks about his WP:POINT behaviour in creating articles like this, because previous editors following this course have ended up on the wrong end of the block button. Black Kite 22:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This event should not be its own article. At most, it could be given a small mention in one of the other Barack Obama articles. SMP0328. (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No evidence could be found that this person passes any of the relevant notability thresholds. ~ mazca talk 23:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed recently-placed PROD template, since this article has actually been deleted twice through PROD. The nominator's reason was: "Not a notable person; notability was queried 7 months ago with no update". Jamie☆S93 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Unanimous consensus that this is unsourceable and likely original research. ~ mazca talk 23:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Started by a banned user, and zero evidence in independent sources that these people actually exist. Biruitorul Talk 19:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. There was obviously a lot to parse here, and a lot that was frankly off-topic, particularly from those who support keeping the article (several of whom very much have a vested interest in doing so, which is not irrelevant to the final decision). Ultimately this comes down to notability, and while Baker has been discussed in some reliable sources, the general read I get from most of the comments is that Baker's only real claim to notability lies in her purported relationship to Oswald, and that WP:NOTINHERITED applies here. It is also pointed out that the basic key points about Baker's claims are already covered elsewhere on Wikipedia, and that this article is thus in a sense an unnecessary fork with some serious POV problems.
I'd point out to the subject of the article who apparently commented below and to her supporters that this is in no way an attempt to censor information, but is merely part of a standard process on Wikipedia whereby we evaluate whether articles belong here or not. That process can be tricky, and sometimes we reverse ourselves later. It is entirely possible that once this book is published (and reviewed in mainstream sources) that the consensus will be that an article on Judyth Vary Baker should exist. Deletion is not necessarily permanent, and I imagine most everyone who supported deleting would be open to re-creation of the article if that seemed warranted. Several of those who commented below will not be happy with the decision to delete, but I welcome them to contact me on my user talk page with any questions or comments.
Suggestions were made below about possibly merging some of this to another article. If anyone wants to do that, I can userfy the article and someone can begin working on possibly moving some material into an existing article (there was no clarity about where it should go). Creation of a redirect was also mentioned and that might be a good idea, but again there was no consensus about where, if anywhere, we should redirect this to so I've not created a redirect. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article isn't verifiable using reliable sources. I checked when it was prodded and could only find websites and other self-published material. Briefly, the article presents the biography of Judyth Vary Baker, who it asserts was a young scientist who was Lee Harvey Oswald's lover, when they were both involved in a covert organisation. None of this can be substantiated, and the article further acts as a coatrack for JFK assassination conspiracy theories. Fences&Windows 18:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
please note J V Baker wrote this material herself, and she has severe eye problems. I have left it as she wrote it, however. Allan Mattsson truehistoryjvbaTruehistoryjvba (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I am allowed to to defend myself. First, I did not place my own biography here: someone else did. However, it had many errors, so a Dutch friend (Wim Dankbaar) began correcting it, later aided by a Swedish friend (Allan Mattsson). I have been on many radio and TV programs, and decline many invitations.
Secondly, 'notable as an artist' is not the main reason for the listing, though my paintings are occasionally purchased by celebrities. One reason for the listing is because the my life story, an hour-long (with commercials) documentary "The Love Affair" is being viewed worldwide, beginning in November, 2003 when the History Channel aired it five times. In Europe, another documentary featured my story in 2006 on Dutch national television. Other documentaries and CDs exist, some furiously opposed. This is not a 'coatrack' article to defend Oswald. Me & Lee is a new hardcover book about my life (to be released in November, by Trine Day, it is already receiving a sales ranking, as it's being pre-ordered on Amazon.com). Two prior books about me were also published by others. Besides documentaries, CDs, and books directly about me, other writers such as Edward T. Haslam have devoted significant chapters in their own books to the subject.
Other events are upcoming which I am not allowed to divulge, for the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination. If you google my whole name "Judyth Vary Baker" more than 1600 references come up, with a number of attack articles included. Googling "Judyth Baker" brings up many thousands, most about me. I urge you to visit the websites and references for yourself: they are not bogus. If you visit my official website, Judythvarybaker.com, you can view some of the evidence. Of course, if Wikipedia doesn't allow articles about people who have created controversy, though books and documentaries and fierce debates continue about that person, then so be it.
As for my being an artist, writer and poet, though my contributions have been minor, they are of interest to others. I have been unable to exhibit in galleries because my paintings get destroyed by vandalism. I was forced to flee the US and was in political asylum for over ten months. I now have to use other people's computers to keep my own from getting hacked, and my location undisclosed. I wouldn't mind some material being deleted from the article, over which I have personally had little control. The person who suggests that my references are bogus apparently believes you won't check this out for yourself. First this was listed as a 'hoax" --that I did not exist. Now it is being listed as so unimportant that it does not deserve to exist. I was in Marquis Who's Who online, and a hostile person convinced an editor there that I did not exist: the biography was removed. therefore, I thought I should at least state the fact that I do actually exist, and that the book Dr. Mary's Monkey, which has three large chapters about my life and my relationship (controversial though it may be) with Lee Oswald, has gone into several new printings. If you read that book, I believe you would agree that some reference to my name should exist.
If you decide to erase my biography, I will certainly mention it in future interviews and documentaries: Sixty Minutes tried to film me three times (see Sixty Minutes' founder Don Hewitt in his C-Span interview complaining that "the door was slammed in our faces" --I can provide the URL, etc.) -- and I will be happy to answer any questions anyone has. It seems to me that because I'm a controversial figure (stories about me occasionally show up in tabloids) that I am not to be considered an honest person, a good person, or a decent person. This is not self-advertisement: ask yourself why my biography should be erased, but a 28-year old cricket player, James Anderson [8] is included. Since films and programs continue to be made about me as more evidence is found that I'm telling the truth, how long will it be before you would then restore my biography? The 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination is just around the corner. If I had said Oswald was guilty, I would have been a very rich woman by now. But because I tell the truth, my biography is to be wiped out? I am making this effort because I don't believe history should be censored. Sorry to take up so much of everyone's time. Here are just a few various references online--from almanacs and encyclopedia references to books and radio/TV... NOT ANY of these were generated by me, no art, literature or poetry references are shown, and these are but a few of those available. Whatever you decide, I do hope you will keep an open mind. Witch hunts, book burnings, and inquisitions don't allow much in the way of self-defense. I'm sorry, again, for taking up so much space and thank my friend Allan Mattsson for retyping this for me. JVB:
List of references collapsed by F&W for space reasons |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
[PDF] Judyth and Lee in New Orleans File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML Video interview of Judyth Vary Baker, Title III. (2005) Amsterdam: Dankbaar. 84.Fonzi, G. (1993). The last investigation. New York: Thunder's Mouth Press. ... judythvarybaker.com/.../Judy%20and%20Lee%20in%20New%20Orleans.pdf - Similar by JD Williams - Related articles - All 2 versions Me & Lee: How I Came to Know, Love and Lose Lee Harvey Oswald (Hardcover) by Judyth Vary Baker (Author), Edward T. Haslam (Foreword) List Price: $24.95 Pre-order Price Guarantee. Learn more. This title has not yet been released. You may pre-order it now and we will deliver it to you when it arrives. Ships from and sold by Amazon.com. Gift-wrap available. Judyth Vary Baker was Lee Harvey Oswald's girlfriend from april 1963 until his death. .... www.jfkmurdersolved.com/judyth.htm - WordPress www.infibeam.com/.../judyth-vary-baker/.../9780979988677.html - Cached - FTR #644 Interview with Ed Haslam About Dr. Mary's Monkey ... spitfirelist.com/.../ftr-644-interview-with-ed-haslam-about-dr-marys-monkey/ - Cached - SimilarYouTube - The History Channel: Documentary: TMWKK, The Final Chapter, ep.8 The Love Affair, seg.1-5 Nov. 2003, 15 Nov 2006 - ... "The Love Affair" focuses on eye-opening interviews with Judyth Vary Baker, .... Statistics & Data. Loading...39,000 views... www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ry3DrsN9PY What does `Judyth Vary Baker` mean? Judyth Vary Baker - Meaning and definition. ... Statistics. Encyclo has been online since october 15th 2007. It currently contains 3264100 words from 1007 ... www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Judyth%20Vary%20Baker - Cached - Judyth A. Vary Baker - Indopedia, the Indological knowledgebase ..."Judyth Vary Baker and the Exoneration of Lee Harvey Oswald," More... www.indopedia.org/Judyth_A._Vary_Baker.html - Cached - SimilarVary - Ask.com Search Vary is a given name, and may refer to: • Judyth Vary Baker (born 1943), woman who claimed to have an affair with Lee Harvey Oswald • Ralph Vary Chamberlin ... dictionary.reference.com/askhome/browse/Vary - Cached - SimilarStateMaster - Encyclopedia: Judyth A. Vary Baker "The Story of Judyth Vary Baker - The Woman who Cracked the US Govt. Whitewash ...DoeWatch www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Judyth-A.-Vary-Baker - Cached - Anna Lewis's Portfolio : Completely Novel Judyth Vary Baker · www.completelynovel.com/authors/5 - www.ip-adress.com/whois/www.jfk-online.com - SimilarAmazon.com: Dr. Mary's Monkey: How the Unsolved Murder of a Doctor ...Following a trail of police records, FBI files, cancer statistics, presenting witness Judyth Vary Baker.... ... VIDEO JUDYTH VARY BAKER 2003 Part 1 DivX (30m. ... www.monova.org/.../KENNEDY%20MURDER%20COLLECTION.PART%203%20OF%20%205%09.html - Cached - SimilarScientists - HIV - Monkeys and JFK? 7 Apr 2009 ... FBI files, cancer statistics, and medical journals, .... Edward T. Haslam and Judyth Vary Baker are modern American heros, ... Dr. Mary's Monkey: How the Unsolved Murder of a Doctor, a Secret ... Following a trail of police records, FBI files, cancer statistics, ... Haslam's primary witness, Judyth Vary Baker, proves beyond a doubt that all of this ... allnurses.com/nursingbooks/NsgStudent-14074-0977795306.html - Similar What does `Judy Baker` mean? Mathematics and statistics. Meteorology and astronomy ... Judyth Vary Baker `Judyth Anne Vary Baker`, née `Judyth Anne Vary` (born May 15, 1943)worked with ... www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Judy%20Baker vary with - Ask.com Search Vary is a given name, and may refer to: Judyth Vary Baker (born 1943), woman who claimed to have an affair with Lee Harvey Oswald Ralph Vary Chamberlin ... dictionary.reference.com/browse/vary%20with - Cached - Similar The Secret Epidemic - Literature - Portal Language Services Haslam's primary witness, Judyth Vary Baker.... According to the CDC's own statistics, the number one transmission for ... portallanguageservices.com/shop/product/The-Secret.../Literature/ - Similar The Final Chapter ep.2, The Love Affair, Pt.5-5 - LiveVideo.com with Judyth Vary Baker, a cancer-research specialist who was having .... Following a trail of police records, FBI files, cancer statistics, ... www.livevideo.com/video/.../the-final-chapter-ep-2-the-lo.aspx - Similar History Channel Sell Out, The Guilty Men/LBJ in JFK: A Presidency ...The Love Affair Recent statistics show that 85% of Americans DISCOUNT the Warren ..... like "The Love Affair" with Judyth Vary Baker, who makes a credible case for having ... boards.historychannel.com/thread.jspa?threadID=100005482... - Similar Lee Oswald planeaba refugiarse en Mérida | Florecita Yucateca - [ Translate this page ] 28 Feb 2006 ... “El pensaba que luego del atentado quedaría libre y podría reunirse conmigo en Mérida para casarnos”, dice Judyth Vary Baker en un ... www.florecitayucateca.com/.../lee-oswald-planeaba-refugiarse-en-merida/ - Cached - Similar Did she have an affair with Lee Harvey Oswald? | HeraldTribune.com ... 22 Nov 2008 ... Judyth Vary Baker will always love Lee Harvey Oswald, the accused assassin of President John F. Kennedy and the man she had an affair with ... www.heraldtribune.com/article/20081122/ARTICLE/811220362 - Similar http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/book/may15.html Wilson's Almanac: birthday, May 15, 1943: Judyth Vary Baker... (Investigated by crime researcher Peter DeVries, he then featured her in his documentary...) Peter R. De Vries Judyth Baker DVD ... his own crime show on Dutch TV since 1996 ... solving cases that have run cold with the Dutch police. ... www.jfkmurdersolved.com/vries.htm - Cached - Similar PDF] F09 Small Press Frontlist:Layout 1.qxd File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML “They thought they could frighten Judyth Vary Baker into silence. ... trail that led from London and Amsterdam overland ... www.ipgbook.com/catalogs/F09/F09SmallPress.pdf - Similar June 2009 De vermeende Kennedy-moordenaar en zijn laatste minnares: «Een ... - [ Translate this page ] Judyth Vary Baker, naar eigen zeggen de laatste minnares van de vermeende ..... van het nieuwe museum Hermitage Amsterdam, en dat is volkomen terecht. ... www.groene.nl/.../De_vermeende_Kennedy-moordenaar_en_zijn_laatste_minnares - Cached - Similar Book 1 - The True Story of the Accused Assassin of President John F. Kennedy, by His Lover, Judyth Vary Baker published by Harrison E. Livingstone 9789703704316 970370431X ... www2.loot.co.za/index/html/index859.html - Cached - Similar "Jag var Oswalds flickvän" - Dalarna - Dalarnas Tidningar - [ Translate this page ] 22 nov 2007 ... Judyth Vary Baker är amerikansk medborgare. Hon har sökt politisk asyl i Sverige men fått avslag. "Jag är det sista levande vittnen om vad ... www.dt.se/nyheter/dalarna/article253753.ece - Cached - Similar [PDF] Sida 1 (4) "LANSRXTTENX — — ~TH>M " Máhir- - - STOCKHOLMS LAN 2008 ... - File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML Judyth Vary Baker överklagar beslutet och yrkar att hon skall beviljas up- .... Du reste in i Sverige den 11 September 2007 och yrkade om m**^ ... Download Summer of 2007 Movie video - Videos search engine ... It is part of the 4 hour DVD on Judyth Vary Baker, who was the girl friend of Lee .... It is an account of government lies, cover-up, black ops, deception, ... www.bollywoodsargam.com/download_video.php?... - Cached - Similar Covert History "The history of the great events of this world are scarcely more than the history of crime. ... Judyth Vary Baker's upcoming book can be pre-ordered here. ... coverthistory.blogspot.com/.../judyth-vary-bakers-upcoming-book-can-be.html - Cached - Similar Timeline results for judyth vary baker history1963 Judyth Vary Baker Lee Harvey Oswald's Mistress Judyth Vary Baker From time to time, if he had an argument with Marina , he would simply go to my ... ahivfree.alexanderstreet.com 2002 4. Judyth Vary Baker, JFKresearch post, November 14, 2002. 5. Judyth Vary Baker with Howard Platzman, Ph.D, "Deadly Alliance: Outline of the ... www.jfk-online.com www.buzzle.com/editorials/5-6-2004-53814.asp - Cached - SimilarInterview with History: The JFK Assassination - Google Books Result by Pamela J. Ray, James E. Files - 2007 - History - 464 pages LEE HARVEY OSWALD AND JUDYTH VARY BAKER Lee Harvey Oswald's mistress, ... 2003 books.google.com/books?isbn=142595992X... AAAAAA DOEWatch, Welcome to The Environmentalist Newsletters ... JFK, Judyth Vary Baker, Castro-cancer, Dallas, Oak Ridge nuclear accidents. ..... The Anti-Christ and the A-Bomb-->History of Religion Orientation on ... www.doewatch.com/ - Cached - Similar Black Op Radio 317 Fletcher Prouty World History 316 Lisa Pease The Zenith Secret .... 171 Judyth Vary Baker Lee Oswald May 13 170 John Judge Washington Update May 6 ... www.blackopradio.com/products.html - Cached - Similar 图片集_Judyth Vary Baker - [ Translate this page ] Judyth Vary Baker的海报- 第0页. 图片网址; 本地图片上传. 输入网址: (输入图片的网址) ... 推荐Judyth Vary Baker给网友. 看的人越多越流畅,赶快推荐给好友 ... bk.pps.tv/ct101591166/image/ - Similar vary synonym | Thesaurus.com Synonyms for vary at Thesaurus.com with free online thesaurus, antonyms, and definitions. ... Vary inversely · Judyth vary baker · Karlovy vary czech . ... thesaurus.reference.com/browse/vary - Cached - Similar Meria With Ed Haslam - Dr. Mary's Monkey at Meria...June 2009 Judith Vary Baker - Oswalds girlfriend ... meria.net/2009/.../meria-with-ed-haslam-dr-marys-monkey/ - Cached - Similar Judyth Vary Baker in History Alive in History Channel Judyth Vary Baker: I have known Judy for years. I have seen her evidence. I have met and talked with others that believe her. boards.history.com/thread.jspa?threadID=300002070... - Cached - Similar |
---Thank you for reading this.
A. M. truehistoryjvbaTruehistoryjvba (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (however ...!). (Changing my analysis, see at bottom Enki H. (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)) Apparently the History Channel aired an episode featuring Ms. Baker in November 2003 [9]. This is enough to make her notable as per WP:Bio (significant coverage). Note that this has nothing to do with the veracity of the claims in the article. Even if this were a hoax, at that point it would be a notable hoax. However, the article still needs to fulfill WP:V and it does not for the most part, since the sources it uses for the most part do not fulfill WP:RS. There is however a detailed discussion of the Ms. Baker's claims on a Web page [10], hosted within the Web site of Marquette University, and authored by John C. Macadams a faculty member of the Department of Political Sciences who specializes in American History. By the looks of it, this qualifies as a reliable source as described in WP:RS: it is published (on the Web), by a scholar in the field (a third-party source), and hosted by an accredited academic institution. That article spells out in detail that practically none of the claims can be substantiated. I find it remarkable that this essay has not been used by the editors of the article, but it seems like a comprehensive, accessible source that could be used and cited in a complete rewrite of the article. Perhaps someone from WP:WikiProject History could kindly take this on. Enki H. (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I attempt comment for Baker. (1)The books "Dr. Mary's Monkey" and "Me & Lee" are NOT self-published books. (2) The History Channel documentary "The Love Affair" is, you agree, a suitable reference. (3) John McAdams' 200 page website attacks Baker, but he and his listed informants never met or interviewed Baker at any time these past ten years. (4) Several large websites support Baker and unmask McAdams' mis-statements and errors, concerning his 'research', written by researchers who have written books about the JFK assassination (McAdams never did), including JFKMurdersolved.com and Edward T. Haslam's author website.(5)The Sarasota Herald Tribune front page article 2008 is not the only recent newspaper article: example: another front-page article in a big paper was The Bradenton Herald's 2003 article; dozens of newspaper and mazine articles overseas can be cited, including in my own country (6) you mention remove all personal websites: is this done with all other living persons? (7) there still remain radio, TV, DVD, CD, documentary trailers, witness interviews, interviews with authors who have written about her, incl. independent websites of quality that provide access online to her life story (8) Harrison Livingstone's 700 page book was not published by Baker. (9) Pam Ray's two self-published books were not published by Baker. (10) Livingstone's book mentioning Baker prominently was not self-published. (11) McAdams quotes from "Deadly Alliance" stolen from Baker in Holland and published online, with alterations. (12) Baker ran her own art gallery in The Netherlands and qualifies as an artist in describing her. QUESTION: who first removed Baker from 'living persons'? I fixed that. Immediately the person then said Baker was 'hoax." I deleted that. She is a living person and controversial. Who then brought up again for 'deletion' under a new excuse, that Baker's references were not real? Now it is admitted 'some' are worthwhile, with untrue comment making it seem all books referenced were 'self-published.' Who is continuing this string of false statements? I have been contributing, along with Baker, to many Wikipedia articles (she is better than me in English, I have better eyesight). We will resign if injustice continues in Wikipedia, and will support the academic community's verdict about Wikipedia instead of striving to make Wikipdia a better and more reliable source. A biography that has stood since 2003 should not be deleted simply because the individual is controversial and somebody here continues a vendetta. I say no more. Allan Mattsson, Stockholm, Sweden.truehistoryjvbaTruehistoryjvba (talk) 11:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep---this article on Judyth Baker is highly significant for those interested in finding the truth on the JFK assassination. The references are reliable and there is adequate documentation to support her statements. Unfortunately, in order to sell books or cause discourse, there are those that object to the JVB story and the saga continues. Jim Phelps---knowing the story on JFK since 1963 from Oak Ridge
Delete. Unsubstantiated self-promoting claims that have attracted little to no attention in the mainstream. A magnet for conspiracy theories and few legitimate sources available to fashion it into a reasonable article. Gamaliel (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Truehistoryjvba, please be careful what you accuse other editors of. "somebody here continues a vendetta" cannot apply to me; I had not heard of Vary Baker before I saw the article proposed for deletion. The History Channel documentary is evidence of notability, but cannot be used to verify fact, as interviews with a subject are not reliable sources. I have asked about McAdam's site here. Fences&Windows 15:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - History Channel documentary and Herald Tribune article are enough for Wikipedia:Notability. Truth or falsehood is for courts to decide, all we are deciding here is whether reliable sources have covered her story substantially. They have. Also meets Wikipedia:Verifiability, which doesn't mean "we can verify that what they say is true" it only means "we can verify that they have actually said it". We can. --GRuban (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Baker appears to be notable solely due to her claims of an alleged relationship with Oswald and the resulting coverage of said claims. As relationships do not confer notability, the proper action here would be to merge her claims to either the Oswald article or the Kennedy Conspiracies article and create a redirect to those articles. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Lee Harvey Oswald per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:ONEEVENT. Algébrico (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and fold into Kennedy assassination theories. To summarize, subject is not notable except per possible relationship with LHO. Evidence of this relationship consists solely of subject's claims and those who allegedly believe that she is telling the truth. I would like to note that the citations in this article are very shoddy and do not tend to bolster the subject's claims. The subject also claims that the issue here is whether wikipedia is wrongfully deleting her biography. Note that the proposals here are not to delete her biography, but instead to move it to a different article. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Judyth Vary Baker is a notable person in her own right - given the fact a) that she has been the focus of the forementioned Nigel Turner program episode - which Wiki references here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Men_Who_Killed_Kennedy [Additionally made even more notable by being banned - by the United States of America].
Further, b) given the role Baker played during a darker part of essentially secret US history which has little documentation or reference backing - HOWEVER - a substantial amount of research confirms and verifies that the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States did in fact pursue several different courses of action with respect to the elimination of Fidel Castro by means of assassination - this was not public knowledge and in 1963 no reference of any kind was available whatsoever - which makes your rule someone moot and self-defeating - considering the scale of data made available over the past 40+ years on the subject. Add the fact that Richard Helms gave the order for the destruction of all files related to the MKULTRA related projects in 1973 - good luck finding a reliable source to substantiate more than 5% of it through normal channels and methods. The 5% that does exist, btw, provides insight into process and procedure for projects - via use of cut-outs without paper trails, covert contacts, code names, etc. Reconsider the value of a person like Judyth Vary Baker for her experience in working directly with one of these cutout groups for the purpose of creating a bio weapon.
Lmforman (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC) — Lmforman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
--- =I see gamaliel has said Baker provided no evidence and some others say this. But references show filmed live witness from New Orleans who everyone knows, testifying Baker had a sexual relationship with Oswald. See Anna Lewis http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/lewis.htm I really want to stay out of this, but live witness testimony does not count in Wikipedia? Anna Lewis and also Edward Haslam http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/haslam1.htm but are not only ones on film or tape for Mrs. Baker. Mac McCullough of New Orleans is on tape. If someone has evidence they had an affair with accused assassin Oswald, and History Channel shows it, and then Mr. Haslam provides more evidence from 1972 (see his interview) then this is not fringe issue any more than biography of Carlos Bringuier is in Wikipedia really because he interacted with Oswald. As for Baker's cancer research, her young age made it remarkable and what was brought her to New Orleans while only age 19. She was first high school student ever allowed at national science writer's cancer research conference in 1961 and was guided by Nobel Prize winners in her research which is unusual age 17. There were hundreds of newspaper articles about her 1961. I am sorry Mrs. Baker got upset, but this has been a bad experience for her, be glad it not happen to you. I need her English skills to continue editing many articles so hope she will still help me. Allan M. truhistoryjvbsTruehistoryjvba (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. IMHO, this is a hoax article, it should be deleted. What's next? articles of every lover JFK had? GoodDay (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. So you will delete Judith Exner biography then? How about deleting George deMohrenschildt, too, because he is only in Wikipedia because he knew Oswald and wrote a book that never got published about it. You need also to delete Chauncy Marvin Holt who only claims to have known Oswald, no evidence at all. I am finished. truehistoryjvbaTruehistoryjvba (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. In the matter of Lee Oswald, the only Judyth Baker topic which would be of any public interest, Baker is widely believed in the assassination research community to be a fraud. And that is as nicely as I can put it. — Walloon (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Schatz87 (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there now exist evidence to support her claims e.g. she did indeed work on the Reily Coffee Company in the summer of 1963 (see copy of her W2 form from the Reily Coffee Company in New Orleans: http://www.judythvarybaker.com/docs/The%20Coffee%20Company.htm). Furthermore, there is at least one surviving witness who have attested LHO and JVB knew each other well: the wife of David Lewis who worked for Guy Banister in 1963, see http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2140352666545542746. Thus, hard evidence exist and it does not matter whether one uses the criteria of "The Truth" or what is verifiable for keeping articles in Wikipedia. By any criterion the article on Judyth Baker qualifies for inclusion. Schatz87 (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC) — Schatz87 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Schatz87, there has never been any doubt that Baker worked at the Reily Coffee Company in the summer of 1963. That is not the question. — Walloon (talk) 17:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Schatz87 (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP KEEP KEEP! Who are Fences&Windows and Enki to judge this article? They want to delete or re-edit based on the "research" and claims of John McAdams?
http://jfkmurdersolved.com/mcadams.htm
Can you read the article thoroughly, including all the references and sources? Otherwise I can't see how anyone can conclude that this is a story without references and evidence from backup witnesses, documentation and contemporary newspaper articles. By the way, I am largely the author of the article as it is today. A year ago I replaced the lone assassin propaganda that Mcadams and his minions put out here. It stood for over a year without any problems. If you have problems with it, you better specify EXACTLY what it is that cannot be substantiated or why the sources are not valid enough for Wikipedia. If a source like McAdams is only valid, that speaks volumes. One might ask why the the Discovery special about Judyth Baker was pulled, buried and removed from the public eye without ANY given argumentation, and after enjoying huge praise and succces from its viewers. Is Wikipedia going down this path too?
Watch it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ry3DrsN9PY
Wim Dankbaar - Netherlands - www.jfkmurdersolved.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wim Dankbaar (talk • contribs) 08:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Note, I am a Wikipedia contributor. Baker is interesting enough to have her hour-long biography aired on History Channel in US, Europe, Australia, etc. five times, before its suppression, and itis still being viewed on YouTube. Biological weapons are of interest to many, as well as the known contamination of the polio vaccine with cancer-causing monkey viruses, which Baker was trained to handle. Then she was also Oswald's lover. I add about witnesses below, because requested on BAKER'S TALK PAGE by someone who wishes to delete, asking who her witnesses are:
ANNA LEWIS is a living witness for Baker as Oswald's lover. Some peoole have even called for Baker's arrest as Oswald's 'co-conspirator."
ANNA LEWIS, mother of ten children, Louisiana native, WITNESS: worked at Thompson's (Restaurant where anti-Castro activists met)known in Warren Commission and Garrison documents. Consented to be filmed only once, testifying before 6 persons in Jan. 2000 in New Orleans that she and husband, David Lewis, double-dated with Baker and Oswald in New Orleans in the summer of 1963, and that her husband and Oswald discussed assassinating Castro. Further, she stated Baker was Oswald's "mistress" and Oswald was "a dominating man" regarding Baker. Lewis took her four children and left her husband in 1965, disgusted because of his involvement with Jack Suggs Martin, an alcoholic, and with Martin's homosexual friends, such as David Ferrie, before Garrison subpoened David Lewis: he testified he did not know her whereabouts. She states she was pregnant, and even though they were estranged, her husband wanted to protect her, so never mentioned his and Anna's relationship to Oswald and Baker.
EDWARD T. HASLAM is a well-known New Orleans native, the son of a respected Tulane doctor who knew David Ferrie's friend, Dr. Mary Sherman (violently murdered the same day the Warren Commission came for unsolicited testimonies to New Orleans). Haslam also knew Sherman and was angry that the case went cold. He filmed his testimony about Judyth Vary Baker's involvement with Sherman and Oswald in 2003 and has repeated it in many interviews, especially concerning his being invited by "Judyth Vary Baker" in 1972 to discuss Oswald and Sherman (at this time, he had begun investigating Sherman's brutal death, a task taking three decades). He then decided to ignore rumors about Baker, until 1999, when Sixty Minutes asked him to research her (he refused due to his bad experience with "Judyth Vary Baker" in 1972). However, Haslam finally met Baker in 2001, when she visited Florida (where he had moved): he was shocked that she was was not the woman who had invited him to meet her in 1972. After Baker presented evidence, including information nobody had known but Haslam concerning Dr. Sherman, he went back to his old records, etc. After more evidence surfaced, he then rewrote his book (Mary, Ferrie & the Monkey Virus) adding three chapters about Baker and Oswald: published in 2007 as Dr. Mary's Monkey by Trine Day, it has gone to multiple printings. Haslam states Judyth Vary Baker worked in an underground lab with Dr. Mary Sherman and David Ferrie in a clandestine cancer project, where his own investigations had already placed Oswald. Haslam presents well-researched information and references.(I copy this from Baker's friend, S. W.) TruehistoryjvbaTruehistoryjvba (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
==John McAdams and freinds is ONLY reference you accept about Baker? The name calling here is shameful.
Note what McAdams posted in the talk section of Baker's biography:
McAdams: "Actually, the section that begins "Killers and the women who love them" was lifed from my essay on Judyth. I'm not exactly mad about that, but it still should not be used without attribution. I think I'll just go in an rewrite it, and list my page as a citation. -- John McAdams
Much more than this was used from McAdams, and by McAdams, to discredit Baker. He labels her the lover of a 'killer' making Oswald guilty when many think not, showing bias that makes me uncomfortable. Same people here keep adding new objections when prior objections got answered, or they repost same old argument again as if no answer was provided. Claiming a fraud, a hoax, over and over again after all this discussion, ignoring researchers on other side of controversy providing evidence supporting Baker that checks out. Claiming 'fringe' when people try to assist the editors to see the other side of the picture. So Baker will be removed after six years on Wikipedia. I now believe everything she said about being persecuted in the US. I see 'remove template' so this record of how Baker was verbally abused here will be erased. So we all wasted our time as you will do what you intended from the beginning? Discussion is just for the show? truehistoryjvbaTruehistoryjvba (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fences&Windows 21:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete contents as CFORK, redirect article to Kennedy_assassination_theories. I am changing my conclusion based on the information of all editors commenting here and what I have reviewed. (i) Most of the article is not sourced by reliable sources. That material would not survive editorial challenge to the degree that it contradicts McAdams, who appears to be aceptable as a source, according to WP:RSN. (ii) what remains is covered in the article Kennedy_assassination_theories#New Orleans conspiracy, that section discusses Ms. Baker's notable claims in context; having separate articles covering the same contents is discouraged as per WP:CFORK, or worse, POV fork. (iii) independent notability arising from a History Channel episode is covered in the article The_Men_Who_Killed_Kennedy#Contents of the Three Banned Documentaries - the same consideration of CFORK applies. (iv) The Herald Tribune reference could be added to the Kennedy assassination theories, it is focused on that contents. Enki H. (talk) 02:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 6.Claims of conspiracies or Oswald being a patsy are fringe theories, as defined at WP:FRINGE, which you need to read. Fringe is not a perjorative, it is an accurate description. Oswald shooting JFK is accepted by the mainstream."
OK. You told me to read, so I did read. BTW, the word is 'pejorative.' Definition of mainstream: "•the prevailing current of thought; "his thinking was in the American mainstream" wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
...every poll I found shows mainstream America does not agree with you. You state belief in a conspiraycis 'fringe' without references. I looked for statistics. More American people by percentage believe there was a conspiracy than voted for your President. Despite your unsourced persoal opinion, mainstream belief is that Oswald did not act alone.. You asked me to read and here is what I find:
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn" ...polls are conducted among Americans and consistently reflect, beginning in 1998: (1) American majority believes Oswald did not act alone and that a conspiracy existed:
(20 in 2003: "-40 Years Later: Who Killed JFK? - CBS News Belief In A Conspiracy Remains Strong Among American People. ... A 1998 CBS News poll found that only 10 percent of respondents felt Oswald acted alone. .... www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/20/.../main584668.shtml -
More results from www.cbsnews.com »FOXNews.com - Poll: Most Believe 'Cover-Up' of JFK Assassination ...On the 40th anniversary of JFK's assassination, a recent FOX News poll shows most ... Kennedy's assassination was part of a larger conspiracy (73 percent to 58 percent)...
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102511,00.html - -Majority believe JFK assassination a conspiracy 14 Nov 2003 ... Thursday, June 4, 2009, Morning Edition ... Majority believe JFK assassination a conspiracy. Poll: 57% reject government's ..."...Poll: 80% Believe Kennedy Conspiracy. Tuesday, 22 May 2007..." But YOU are mainstream, is that it, and the American people are not? truehistoryjvbaTruehistoryjvba (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. While a reasonable argument can be made that a national television program that ran for multiple series should be notable; searches by multiple participants have failed to provide adequate sources to satisfy WP:N. Consensus therefore seems to be that this article is insufficiently sourceable at this time. ~ mazca talk 18:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod; I believe this fails WP:GNG because of a lack of reliable sources available for the TV show. I tried to do a Google search but the only thing I could get were for the early 80's sitcom. Tavix | Talk 18:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to previously stated Delete. Per WP:NOR#Translations, the very title of this article is troublesome. The article author never sources his English translation of the program's title (that is, the article title). Automatic translation engines have generated nothing even remotely similar to the article title chosen by the originating editor. Ironically, engines seem to have done what seems a better job!
The first program, where the parents hope to find wives for their sons, has been automatically translated as "Lining up three wives".
The second program, where the parents try to convince three daughters-in-law to get pregnant, has been automatically translated as "Three wives line up". Very clever, and more evidence that this author didn't/doesn't have a good sense of his subject.--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listcruft without main article. The second problem is WP:OR because the title has the word young, but the definition of young may vary (see: Youth). Third problem is definining people who are 40 and 50 as young. Although it is not clearly defined, at least according to the sources on the article Youth, none of them defined 40 or 50 as "young", which make me believe it's also a problem of undue weight. Algébrico (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
“ | Valid examples of standalone lists would include List of University of Chicago people and List of Oz books. In both cases, the lists correspond closely to encyclopedia articles—University of Chicago and L. Frank Baum, respectively—and in both cases the length and detail of the list justify breaking them out.
On the other hand, topics such as List of small-bust models and performers, List of songs that contain the laughter of children, and List of nasal singers should be considered highly questionable because there are no articles on those topics. |
” |
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Flowerparty☀ 23:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAP and maybe WP:HOAX. I've tried to clean up the article a bit but it is still so far removed from what actually appears to have aired on Israeli TV that I suggest deleting and starting again. Despite claims in the article that this is a 5 min. 30 sec. documentary about a massacre of Egyptians POWs -- with refs from Arab news sites and blogs repeating incorrect hearsay originating from Al Ahram-- the Haaretz article makes it clear that this is in fact a full-length documentary by Ran Adelist on the Israeli military unit, which included a brief segment on the killing of retreating Egyptian troops, and the qualms of some of the Israeli veterans, 30 years later, about following that order. No POWs were killed. This article was written by the creator of the now-deleted Holocaust of Gaza, and as the comments on the YouTube EL ("kill the jews," etc.) indicate, constitutes an attack piece more than anything else. I would consider withdrawing the Afd if someone else wants to rewrite from scratch: with a text that describes the actual The Shaked Spirit Channel One TV documentary – and the ensuing controversy sparked in the Egyptian press – in a factual, neutral fashion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was WP:Snowball. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't meet WP:NOT Gordonrox24 | Talk 17:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Flowerparty☀ 23:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prod was deprodded by a sock of a banned user doing block evasion, but I did not reprod since someone else has edited it slightly since. Am going to AFD because this person seems to fail WP:ACADEMIC criteria for an article here. DreamGuy (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a classic case of a WP:COATRACK; the only point of this article is to direct people towards socionics. There is a legitimate biochemistry use of the term, and it is connected to the cited authors, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with socionics. Suggest deletion without prejudice towards recreation of genuinely relevant content. Mangoe (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Flowerparty☀ 23:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't meet WP:N. Gordonrox24 | Talk 17:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitly not notable and only citation is a myspace page. Rcurtis5 (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Subject has no individual notability. Only claim to notability is being the father of William Halsey, Jr.. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a content fork from socionics (typology), which latter really should be at socionics (currently a disambig). Socionics proper appears to be some sort of fringey personality type system which merits coverage of some sort. The article in question seems to be a mass of original research and synthesis, and it seems to exist because the material was chased out of the main article. I can't tell whether this is the primary author's personal theory or a fringe of the fringe, because some of the sources are in Russian; those sources I can read do in general have nothing to do with socionics. In any case the article titles imply that there is a psychology socionics and an esoteric socionics, when what appears to be the case is that the article in question is claiming that socionics IS esoteric. Mangoe (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem with socionics in the case of wikipedia is that its own english development was over the internet from Russian language sources. It has in its original form a heavy esoteric base that included chakras and psychic energy, yet it was later framed to seem something more 'psychological' and similar to something from Jung or MBTI and disconnected from the original esoteric elements that formed the theory, despite the fact that these esoteric things dominated the origin of socionics theory and that there is indeed a split where some people take a mystical and esoteric approach [usually involving chakras and psychic energy] and others claiming a more psychological or empirical approach. There are extreme differences in interpretation and opinions on the usages of socionics. On account of the lack of creditable english sources and that the main sources are all in Russian makes it easy to claim original research on the matter, when these are actual viewpoints within the realm of socionics. There is also the fact that there are people who [usually only after learning just the generalized form over the internet and] are completely unfamiliar with the history of socionics, completely denying the esoteric version and mystical interpretations of socionics that literally exist as legitimate viewpoints within the realm of socionics, and this has caused neutrality issues in the original socionics article where there are people intent on oppressing any viewpoint that claims or shows that socionics has more to do with esotericism and mysticism than it does to something with a scientific approach, when socionics has no scientific validation whatsoever other than perhaps some speculation that 'such and such' about the theory is always the case. And this is the exact problem with the way people are using socionics. They are definitely not totally telling the truth about socionics in the main article socionics (typology) at all in the origination of the theory and anybody who tells the truth about socionics and its origination usually gets ganged up on by people who want to claim that socionics has absolutely no esoteric, mystic, or occult ties whatsoever, and that is how the socionics(esoterism) article came to be. In any case, I agree that the credible information that exists in the socionics (esoterism) article should be in the main article, but as I have said there is a neutrality dispute over the nature of the presentation of socionics and it is a legitimate battle to present the actual factual information without some form of bias. The socionics (typology) article in itself is full of things that can also be considered origional research and lacking credible source materials as well, so it is not just this article, it is socionics in general that there is just not a lot of viable sources that can be cited. It is the nature of the theory at the moment. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am copying and pasting this from the Talk:Socionics_(typology) talk page just to show the extent of this debate:
The rational skeptics are currently investigating socionics to discover the the real truth behind socionics that people are attempting to hide in order to make unsubstantiated scientific and others claims about socionics that is simply not true in light of the legitimate esoteric background of socionics, the mystic interpretations that are present in socionics theory and associated with the founders such as Ausura Augusta, and the substantiated connection between socionics, information metabolism (otherwise known as psychic energy), mysticism, tattwas, chakras, physiognomy and any other connected protoscience or pseudoscience. For this reason, the 'rational skeptic' tag has been added to this article.
"Mystic psychology" is often indistinguishable from "realist philosophy", as the two go hand and hand. Ontology and mathematics are often used in both separately or together. It is ridiculous to say that socionics is a "realist philosophy" and not also also say that it is a "mystic psychology". Socionics is a realist philosophy and also a mystic psychology. Claiming that "ausura augusta herself was not a mystic" is about as silly as going back up to a couple of debates ago where people were claiming that "you can claim Jung was influenced by hermeticism, alchemy, hindu philosophy, but socionics sure the heck was not" when in fact the basis of socionics is nothing except chakras, tattwas, psychic energy and that it was actually Antoni Kepimski's theory developed from these and hardly Jung or MBTI at all. I am getting so sick of people making these silly unsubstantiated claims and making false claims about its origin in order to frame socionics away from the actual truth about its esoteric foundation. You are just telling mistruths about its origion in order to 'make it seem acceptable' to people who want nothing to do with chakras, psychic energy, or esotericism. In fact, I would call the history of its origin as originally told in english to be a big fat western lie, and it is sad that people believe something to be true about socionics that is false and making it seem like it is something that it is not. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose since it seems that there is a movement to delete the article what is credible in this article should be salvaged and placed in the other article ... again. Nevertheless, I am pretty sure the same problems are going to arise with people who do not want to acknowledge the existence of a legitimate mystic approach spawned from the esoteric tendencies of its founders are going to try to keep any evidence of the viewpoint out of the article again to present it as something it is not entirely, causing more neutrality issues in the presentation of socionics where you have a heavy esoteric basis on the theory that carries through even as it is deceptively being framed to seem to be something "scientific" or like "Jung or MBTI". You think a neutral party would allow the evidence that this is the case to be present in the socionics (typology) in some form. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Niffweed is one of those people who have bought into the western lie that socionics is "something like Jung and MBTI" and has done nothing but intensely persecute those who tell the truth that socionics has an intense esoteric background. When I literally owned the the16types.info forum for 4 straight years, he made a regular habit of following users around during that time who spoke anything contrary to "his opinion on the matter" and harass them. He even goes so far as to commit slanderous and libelous accusations against people such as "calling them insane" or labeling them with "psychiatric disorders" even as such is libelous false. This tactic seems to be his main response to those who disagree with him and otherwise shows that "his opinion on the matter" lacks a high degree of respectability. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion on why the Socionics article deletion would potentially be a good thing taking the circumstances
First off I should probably state who I am. I am officially recognized in Russia and the United States as a practicing socionists. I studied Religion, Theology, Metaphysics, Biblical Languages, at a University in Texas for 4 years, and the German language at a University in Northern California for 3 years, where I had the opportunity to exchange to Tuebingen University in Tuebingen, Germany to study Theology, and improve my Greek. I have studied socionics since 2003 and was the owner of the largest english speaking socionics forum the16types.info since 2005 (bought from Jimmy Caretti) until I sold it in late 2008. Since that time I formed the forum metasocion.com in order to present socionics in its natural form, as I found the "the the16types.info" crowd to be both extremely ignorant and prejudiced against presenting socionics the way that the founders had originally presented it. You can see some of my socionic credentials below:
http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Reuben_McNew http://www.typelab.ru/en/1.begin/index.html http://www.socioniki.info/index.php/2008-11-05-20-39-51
It is my personal opinion that all socionics articles should be deleted until it is agreed by everyone that it is a good idea to give a neutral presentation of the origin of socionics that discusses its esoteric development and gives mention to the fact that esoteric interpretations of chakras, tattwas, and psychic energy and mysticism in general were the main basis that the founders of socionics based their theory upon, and that from this socionics was formulated and later "framed to appear to be something like Jung or MBTI" and that "mystical interpretations of socionics type theory have descended directly from the founders and exist to this day" and that "there is a split between those of the opinion that socionics is something empirical and that socionics is something mystical." The multitude of sources that have been presented have already shown this. However, taking that there are people who would rather take unneutral views of socionics and present socionics in a way contrary to its origin [meaning in a frame which presents it as a form similar to MBTI or Jung with no mention of its esoteric background] I would be in favor of deleteing all socionics articles. I think that those who are opposed to an esoteric presentation of socionics should either come to terms that it would be correct to allow some information in some form to neutrally portray socionics esoteric background or to be content with the deletion of the whole of all of the information. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete: A7/G11 as non-notable local chapter and suspected (self-)promotional piece. --Kinu t/c 21:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't meet WP:N Gordonrox24 | Talk 17:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See this discussion RaLo18 (talk with me • my contributions) 16:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A recreation of an article deleted twice after a previous AfD. Db-repost declined because "does not qualify for deletion as recreaion of deleted article because this article bears little resemblance to the article previously deleted as a result of AfD". In one respect it does resemble the previous article; the underlying topic is not notable. Abductive (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Some reasons why this could be notable have been put forward; but despite some apparently comprehensive searching no real coverage has been found in order to demonstrate it. ~ mazca talk 18:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this really notable? NeW MeN doesn't show up anywhere.
Found this while looking for more information on Secrets that Sell, an HGTV program. Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 01:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Article about a colloquialism, with an example of usage which does not qualify as an assertion of notability. In contesting the prod, the author simply stated that she wrote the entire article by herself. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a non-notable academic. Although the article claims two books and 30 journal publications, the books have not been published and none of the journal articles appear in refereed journals. The person in question also does not appear to have ever held an academic position. In fact, there is currently no online evidence for his existence other than his personal web pages. The article is also full of material about his theories that is difficult to make sense of. Looie496 (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC) For convenience, I am also listing here Bio-civics, an article about Stingl's theory in which most of the text is taken from the Alexander Stingl article, and for which no published sources exist. I hope that listing both of these together doesn't violate any procedures. Looie496 (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources.Sancho 06:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-notable piece of software, with no significant coverage that I can find. The article was created by a single-purpose account whose edits have been exclusively promoting this software and its parent company, H3 Solutions Incorporated. -- Atamachat 16:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related article because it suffers from the same issues, and is the company that makes the software in question:
The result was Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G7 - the author blanked the page. Thryduulf (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Dive site with no assertion of notability. The article sounds more like a review intended solely for divers. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep as per consensus and no calls for deletion beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another single sourced (from a Swedish book) article about a minor alleged witch trial case created by the same editor who made Hans the Werewolf, also up for deletion. This level of detail is way too much to be based upon a single source of unknown reliability (a lot of the claims made seem quite controversial and would probably be argued differently if other sources paid any attention to it), and Wikipedia articles require multiple independent reliable sources with nontrivial coverage, etc. A search on Google for more information found a ton of Wikipedia mirrors and sites skimming text from the article (as well as some strange search result pages showing no hits on various sites), but no reliable sources at websites and no books at Google books mentioning the case, which is why we should delete it. DreamGuy (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge any relevant and cited information to Dryad, as gathered consensus deems appropriate. ÷seresin 23:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has been proposed that this article be (re)merged with Dryads, but there is no valuable content to merge. Furthermore the article's subject does not seem to be independantly notable, as there are no relevant results with searches for Dryads in fiction or Dryads in popular culture. I enjoy salvaging information, but there is no information here to salvage, and as a topic there is nothing notable to be said. NickPenguin(contribs) 15:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep as per consensus and no calls for deletion beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Renominating for deletion, since problems discussed at last AFD (closed with no consensus, with some blatant WP:ILIKEIT votes, etc.) have not been fixed. Article only has two sources: the Swedish one which is being used for most of the info, including a number of claims that sound controversial based upon my knowledge of werewolf folklore and witch trial history that are presented as facts just because this Swedish author claimed them; and an English one, which only discusses this case in the most trivial of ways (based upon a person at the previous AFD looking into it, it's just a page or page and a half or so of text in a 477 page book specifically devoted to just Estonian werewolf and poisoning cases!). This case is not notable as far as werewolf cases go, but even as far as Estonian incidents go it's apparently just a footnote. It's not mentioned in our article of Werewolf or any other article here on related topics, so no independent person thought it was notable enough to discuss on those topics. The bottom line is this is just essentially a single-sourced incident (source being in Swedish who knows how much it even takes up in that book), while we need multiple, independent, reliable sources giving non-trivial coverage of the topic in a way that would indicate notability enough for an encyclopedia article in order for us to have a page devoted to it at Wikipedia. This fails those standards quite dramatically. Proving that the event happened is not the same as demonstrating that it is notable, This should be deleted, and there's nothing there of any value to merge or any reason to redirect. DreamGuy (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fork. Should be in Kenny Chesney article. Gordonrox24 | Talk 15:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software product. Also WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:COI since the article was created by software author. ((Prod)) removed by article author with no explanation. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete I am the author. I made changes to address the concerns noted. I removed the Self-published sources including the press release. I added a reference to a reliable third party source (WebCPA, an independent source of information for CPAs). I removed references to Brad Smith, CPA, LLC in the aticle. I took care to write the article sticking to the facts. The product is known primarily in the CPA community. There are users of the product all over the world. I wrote the article because I know the product the best. My primary aim is not self-promotion but to extend the discussion of Microsoft Word citing an add-in that extends the capabilities of the Microsoft Word program. There are a lot of people who are interested in the formula-writing aspect of Microsoft Word. My contribution is just as much about informing people that want to know more about Microsoft Word's formula functions and appreciate Wikipedia as a source of information. Because it is not a Microsoft product it should have its own wiki page. --Bradsmithcpa (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update from Author I added another reference to a reliable third party source - SmartPros (smartpros.com) , a well known and respected source of training and information for professionals in accounting and financial management. I think Formula Builder for MS Word passes the Google test for notability. I got 220,000 hits googling the product name and 18,900 hits if the product name is placed in quotation marks (searched as exact phrase). I think the added reference and the google information gives it notability--Bradsmithcpa (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update from the Author I added an independent review of the product [27]. The other independent references for Microsoft Word are to support the comments in the article which is a wiki best practice. They are not included to decieve others into thinking the product has notability - just provide support for the article. --Bradsmithcpa (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Flowerparty☀ 23:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Article is about a non-notable holiday, possibly made up one day. No significant coverage in reliable sources provided, none found outside of blog mentions. It should be noted that the sourced listed as "Yahoo news" does not go to Yahoo. TNXMan 14:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ReformatMe (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:MUSIC, whilst a google search verifies its existence mainly through directory listings, appears to have had no third party coverage [28] LibStar (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional stub about non-notable book; all external links are to online bookshops. Very probably the article is created by the author of the book. -- Sander Säde 13:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website/company. Insufficient reliable sources to support notability per WP:CORP and/or WP:WEB. All but 2 of the refs are self references, blogs, Twitter or directory type sources and those 2 are of uncertain reliability. ukexpat (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Walking in the Kingdom. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:BIO, almost all the third party mentions are of a different Tom Renfro [29] LibStar (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People from Réunion are French, because Réunion is France. Furthermore, it has always been French, except for five years in 1810-1815, when it was seized by the British. And there were no indigenous tribes before the French settlement. This is why talking about Franco-Réunionnais does not make any sense at all. Of course, there are people from non-French origin on the island, and the term franco-réunionnais may be found on Google. But it has never been used for an ethnic group. Maurice45, who created the page and is of Mauritian descent, probably thought that the ethnic division was the same as in neighbouring Mauritius, where Franco-Mauritian is indeed in use, which appears normal as Mauritius is no more French for two centuries. Many contributors told him about the problem on Talk:Franco-Réunionnais, Talk:Indo-Réunionnais and Talk:Réunion. Yet, he continues to maintain he is right. The fact is none of his references documents the use of Franco-Réunionnais. And ethnic statistics being illegal in France, the references saying Réunionnais from French descent form about one quarter of the population are necessarily mistaken. Thierry Caro (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Call of Duty (series). –Juliancolton | Talk 19:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not cite sources, and is basically just a collection of rumors. Gosox5555 (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Shereth 20:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article is unreferenced apart from links to two self promotional websites. Band fails to meet notability guidelines as per WP:BAND. Article appears to consist only of promotional material. Deconstructhis (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. No reliable sources provided, none found in a search. Not a notable program. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completely non-notable spinoff of Eurovision. No reliable sources cited, a quick search throws up nothing like one. J Milburn (talk) 12:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced bio/obituary. References aside, there is no notability and it's not even clear the text is to be taken seriously. Redir to Crystal Palace Dinosaurs was contested. I42 (talk) 12:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per consensus that there exists insufficient reliable sources. Shereth 20:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:BIO notability criteria. Nearly all sources of notability are from a student newspaper. The New York Times article simply quotes the individual on a particular issue. OhNoitsJamie Talk 11:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete Keep after receiving sources that LoI is indeed a fully professional league. Black Kite 19:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Footballer who has never played in a fully professional league, thus failing WP:FOOTYN. Dancarney (talk) 08:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An article on this player was deleted by AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seamus Coleman soon after his move to Everton. He has not played for Everton since his move there. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do I have to go on, and on, and on, and on...............?
and I will just leave you with this wee piece from Ireland highest selling national newspaper.
Comment I don't consider football newspaper articles as indications of notability. They are notoriously mixtures of POV and gossip. I would require something more about his actual achievements - not anticipated triumphs. I felt the same about the players quoted before eg. Egland Haxho etc.....--AssegaiAli (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Death of Neda Agha-Soltan. There's a clear consensus that this and Death of Neda Agha-Soltan should be merged. However, as the death article is not included within the scope of this AfD, discussion regarding where/how to merge should take place at the article's talk page, preferably. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neda (Iranian protester)
Simple case of WP:BIO1E. Her death is obviously notable (I'm not challenging that point whatsoever) for symbolic and memetic reasons, but that is already covered in Death of Neda Agha-Soltan; there is no indication of biographical notability preceding that event. Furthermore, Death of Neda Agha-Soltan already contains sufficient biographical context, so there isn't really anything that can be merged from Neda Agha-Soltan without bloating Death of Neda Agha-Soltan or allowing it to digress away from its genuinely notable features. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Step two: Would breaking the biography and the event into separate articles serve Wikipedia's purposes in this instance, yes or no? If yes, then keep.[...T]here is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects. [...] Well-referenced and well-written articles on obscure topics are from time to time deleted as well, but such deletions are controversial. It is also worth noting that many articles on relatively obscure topics are featured articles.---WP:FAN
That is, to make sure our readers' eyes don't glaze over with coverage of peripheral detail extraneous to the precise topic being covered within an article, we break out extensive coverage being given some related matter or issue into separate articles, being sure to include only the pertinent details therefrom into that article's parent.The key to avoiding information overload is to break an article down into more than one page[...]. These can start out as section headings and be broken out into separate pages as the main article becomes too long. [...]Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base of any and all information, full of railroad timetables and comprehensive lists. But any encyclopedic subject of interest should be covered, in whatever depth is possible.---META:WIKI IS NOT PAPER#ORGANIZATION
The result was delete. Shereth 20:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This "hypothesis" is highly theoretical (polite way of saying that it was proposed in a highly obscure journal full of biological crackpottery and no one knows about it). A lit search brings up nothing, and "frozen plasticity" gets a grand total of 82 real Google hits. (Far less than my own obscure personal name.) Completely non-notable and unknown to the scientific community. Reads like an article for someone shamelessly plugging their own forgotten hypothesis. Bueller 007 (talk) 08:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability of the sources supports our requirement that content be properly verifiable from good sources. There is still a slight hurdle of the point that this might be a novel hypothesis that has simply failed to far to gain any traction in the world at large outside of its author, our Wikipedia:No original research requirement.
As was not properly clear from the original article, but as Nerdseeksblonde points out above, all of the sources are M. Flegr xyrself, and it's difficult to find sources by other people where Flegr's ideas are acknowledged. However, this is an identifiable credentialed expert, a professor in the Faculty of Science at Charles University in Prague, publishing (in one case, at least) in a peer-reviewed journal. It is not an uncredentialed unidentifiable person publishing under a pseudonym on Usenet. So the problems of general acknowledgement and acceptance of the concept and its incorporation into the corpus of human knowledge are not as clear cut in this instance as they are in other cases. Uncle G (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand the wiki criteria, notability doesn't allow exceptions for author's credentials and indeed that would be advocating that wiki become a soapbox for established approved authors prior to getting a hearing in secondary sources. I am not advocating acceptance on those criteria, just confessing I haven't bothered to look for positive evidence. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bueller 007 (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]His book Frozen Evolution deals with the idea of frozen plasticity, a hypothesis that describes a new mechanism for the origin of adaptive traits. He claims that natural selection can only explain the evolution of such adaptations under very special situation, e.g. in genetically homogeneous population of asexual organisms. He describes the idea of "frozen plasticity" as being more general, and contends that it can better explain the origin and evolution of adaptive traits in genetically heterogeneous population of sexual organisms.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Previously bundled nom here - renominated to get clearer consensus on single article. The article is regarding a footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE as there is no evidence to prove the Albanian Superliga is fully-professional, failing WP:V. Also fails WP:N due to any references asserting notability. --Jimbo[online] 08:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Previously bundled nom here - renominated to get clearer consensus on single article. The article is regarding a footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE as there is no evidence to prove the Albanian Superliga is fully-professional, failing WP:V. Also fails WP:N due to any references asserting notability. --Jimbo[online] 08:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Previously bundled nom here - renominated to get clearer consensus on single article. The article is regarding a footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE as there is no evidence to prove the Albanian Superliga is fully-professional. Also fails WP:N due to any references asserting notability. --Jimbo[online] 08:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:ATHLETE clearly defines "fully professional," which is not the same as "top-level" (rather vague). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Previously bundled nom here - renominated to get clearer consensus on single article. The article is regarding a footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE as there is no evidence to prove the Albanian Superliga is fully-professional. Also fails WP:N due to any references asserting notability. --Jimbo[online] 08:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 06:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another anti-psychiatry article disguised as a BLP. Total of 17 hits on Google news about this person since 1975. Ridernyc (talk) 07:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another non-notable BLP that is really a coat rack for anti-psychiatry. Only a handful of hits on google news. On of the most popular year for hits would be 1994 [36] a total of 6 hits and not all about this person. Article is not covering the person, it's covering the persons comments about ECT. Ridernyc (talk) 07:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. Sorry but this dude is just not notable, and notability is not inherited from affiliations, either. Its pretty black and white; either sources exist (as required under WP:BLP) or they don't. And I'm not seeing them and outstanding issues have not been addressed from the two prior deletion noms. Hopefully third times a charm. JBsupreme (talk) 06:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 06:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
POV biased original research, only source is a dead link. Wikipedia is not a memorial site. - 2 ... says you, says me 04:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE as junior level competitions aren't the highest level of amateur competition. Sancho 06:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No notability according to WP:BIO, no sources confirming article statements, violation of WP:AB. RedAndr (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All original research, no citations, and not significant Kurt (talk) 03:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The prod on this article was removed by a serial deprodder. This film contains no references for verification and I am unable to find any through my searches. By virtue of that fact, the film also fails our notability guidelines as it hasn't been discussed significantly in reliable, third-party sources. ThemFromSpace 03:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article's prod was removed by a serial deprodder. The content appears to be nothing but plot summary of a minute detail of a novel which hasn't been covered enough by reliable, third-party sources to meet WP:N. As there is no real encyclopedic coverage to be merged anywhere (and no referenced material at all), this content should be deleted. ThemFromSpace 02:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No substantive sources are available. No sources appear to exist online to backup the claim that he represented New Zealand at an under-18 match in a World Cup in Israel. The sources I have found are [47], which lists him as a high jumper on page 91, and [48] which lists him in several sports in a Wellington regional competition. These are insufficient to establish notability. I could find none of the news articles claimed in the article in Google News. gadfium 02:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was deleted. Flowerparty☀ 08:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a non-notable website created by a WP:SPA. Basically WP:ADVERTISING, but it does make unsubstantiated claims of notability. Author deleted WP:PROD notice with no explanation or attempts to improve the article. Pburka (talk) 02:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable school song. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 06:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed by a serial deprodder. This shopping mall cannot be shown to be notable as significant coverage of it likely does not exist in reliable, third-party sources. ThemFromSpace 02:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Non-notable future product. No reliable sources. Wperdue (talk) 02:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. I note that this has been twice relisted by the nominator, but WP:RELIST discourages relisting in these circumstances. I cannot see that another week will bring any different arguments to the table. As always, a discussion on merging or redirecting can be opened on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 11:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In March, user:Thegroove nominated this article for deletion, see [51], observing that it "[f]ails our notability and reliable source [requirements], as almost all of the sources provided are self-published, and the ones that aren't don't say anything that indicates notability. Google News turns up nothing except a minor incident involving the seizure of a server." On the face of the article, that editor concluded, the subject organization evidently "has no claim to have done anything significant or noteworthy."
The nomination was well-taken, as I explained in comments supporting it, but consensus was not reached (a decision, good wikiquette obliges me to disclose, that I disputed, see [52]). The passage of time has only strengthened the case for deletion. Despite a college try by user:jezhotwells, see [53]), nothing added to the article since March has patched the holes in the article's hull that were discussed in the first nomination; if anything, more bulkheads have given way (one of the few independent sources cited has been flagged as a dead link, see [54]). I think it's time to reconsider.
Bristol Indymedia is not notable, and should be deleted. WP:ORG instructs that an organization "is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject ... Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." The article cites nothing reliable that, individually or in sum, shoulders that burden (indeed, it cites very little except Indymedia articles, the very antithesis of "independent of the subject"). A google search hardly suggests that underinclusive editing is to blame, which takes WP:SOFIXIT off the table as a remedy. See also WP:ATD.
A last-gasp alternative theory of notability argues that the authorities' 2005 seizure of the organization's server saves the article. As I explained in March, however, that dog won't hunt. Even assuming that the seizure itself is notable under WP:EVENT, the nominated article isn't about the seizure -- it's about the organization whose server was seized. WP:ORG is crystal clear on this point: an organization "is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage" (emphases added). That isn't the case here. Bristol Indymedia isn't the "subject" of the Register's coverage of the seizure, for instance, see [55] - the seizure is. Participation or involvement in a notable event does not by itself bootstrap an organization into notability. (Even if it did, premising this article's survival on the notability of the seizure event gives rise to serious problems with WP:UNDUE.)
Finally, to the extent that there is anything salvageable in the article--i.e. notable and backed by reliable sources--the article should still be deleted, and that content merged into Independent Media Center, Bristol Indymedia's parent organization. That article already has a section on the server seizures. There is simply no need for local subsidiary, which is not notable in its own right, to have its own entry. That's why, for example, Scotland Indymedia and Portland Indymedia are redlinks. (But, I realize, see WP:WAX.)
It's high time we dropped the curtain on this article. I propose its deletion - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A few comments:
Comment: Further citations from USA Today, Business Exchange, a subsidiary of McGraw-Hill, and Venue magazine, a subsidiary of Bristol News and Media added. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
[reply]
In such cases, I'm persuaded by Uncle G's reasoning in User:Uncle G/On notability, and would refer you to that essay for very detailed arguments in support of this approach.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article was a U.S. Air Force pilot who was killed when his airplane crashed during a training mission. The crash is a tragedy, to be certain, but in regards to Wikipedia's notability standards, it doesn't appear the late pilot qualifies for coverage here. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Dream Team characters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The prod of this article was removed by a serial deprodder, but I find the original prodder's concern, which follows, to be valid.
A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
2009 June 24 – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability ThemFromSpace 01:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prod was removed by a serial deprodder. This article fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC as there aren't any reliable sources found to give evidence of the encyclopedic importance of the band. Their two albums barely register within google, which would be the most likely place to find information about small bands. ThemFromSpace 01:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable disc replication company. Reads like an advert. Tempshill (talk) 01:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was WP:SNOWBALL Delete --JForget 00:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Slag: Best Enemies fails to meet notability under WP:NFF: future film "in production" with no particular notability to details of production. Closeapple (talk) 01:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
—Closeapple (talk) 01:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
a non notable student organisation, failing WP:ORG. no real third party coverage [68]. google search mainly shows mirror sites and directory listings. LibStar (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Nine Inch Nails. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fictional album, meant as an April Fool's Joke by Trent Reznor/Nine Inch Nails. Notability is not transferable. No third-party sources available, only the single fake NIN web page. Even then, coverage of the album was limited to nin.com to only one day (April Fools day). Drewcifer (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 06:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possible violation of WP:BLP1E. Dodson appears to be notable solely for his arrest, and for not complying with authorities. (And also for complaining about the conditions of his jail) Aditya α ß 15:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article about a planned second season of an existing reality television show contains no substantial information beyond links to a casting call. It is basically pure advertisement and should be deleted as such until a verifiable airdate is published by a reliable source, at which point, it could be re-created. Plastikspork (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of mayors of Brampton per WP:BLP. If someone wants to source this article, it can be restored. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person. KMFDM FAN (talk!) 01:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - WP:POLITICIAN states that Mayors 'are likely to meet this criterion', and Brampton is a city of nearly half a million. That said, a brief google doesn't turn up a huge number of hits for media. So keep, but let's try to find some sources and notable things in his 8 year term. --Saalstin (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable academic program between two universities; no significant coverage in reliable third-party sources; Wikipedia is not a directory of academic programs and requirements Madcoverboy (talk) 02:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to North American Football League. As there is clearly no substantial coverage of this team, a redirect to the league's article appears to be the consensus. ~ mazca talk 08:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-professional, minor league team that plays at a high school stadium Passportguy (talk) 10:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to North American Football League. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A "team for students to refine, develop, and showcase their talents and earn a chance to be recognized for college sponsorships or professional teams." (quote from team website) - non-notable Passportguy (talk) 10:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not in wikipedia format and has no encyclopaedic importance at all. Also it is written like a guide. Irunongames • play 10:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G7 by Closedmouth Thryduulf (talk) 08:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google search doesn't really turn up the reported '34 years of history'. No reliable sources to confirm. Other than that, looks like an advertisement. Wikipedia is not free ad space. — Dædαlus Contribs 00:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn — Jack Merridew 04:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hints of notability, but all a google search comes up is with places to buy the game, this wikipedia page, and the page fore the game's official website. — Dædαlus Contribs 00:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 06:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination; I personally am neutral on this matter. See User talk:NuclearWarfare#Jason Pierce and Jeremy May Deletion
The creator of this article wishes to see this deleted. The reason he gave me was, "Jeremy May's article should be deleted because he also shows no notability other than being on The Ultimate Fighter. The other thing about May is, he doesn't even compete in mixed martial arts any more. He has not fought for any big promotions and holds no titles." NW (Talk) 00:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: United States vs. United Kingdom. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination; I personally am neutral on this matter. See User talk:NuclearWarfare#Jason Pierce and Jeremy May Deletion
The creator of this article wishes to see this deleted. The reason he gave me was, "First I'll tell you the Jason Pierce page does get a lot of edits but they are always considered vandalism. Most people will put small things in calling Jason names or creating unknown and/or unneeded info. Jason shows no notability other than being on The Ultimate Fighter where he was pulled from competing because of an illness. TreyGeek and myself both agree that the page be deleted." NW (Talk) 00:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article was previously deleted, is substantially identical to the deleted version, and any changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted. Hekerui (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only 2 hits that don't help at Google archives, and nothing asserted that suggests this writer and illustrator will clear the hurdle at WP:AUTHOR. - Dank (push to talk) 15:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to copyright infringement. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Non-notable "style" of music. Ridernyc (talk) 09:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following was added to the debate by the article creator who also blanked most of the page when adding this so I now have to try to restore everything.:
""Pirate Music" created by the Sprague Brothers in 1990 and debuted at the Palomino Club in North Hollywood, California in 1990. Also on the bill that night was Strawberry Alarm Clock. The debut concert was heralded by KROQ and received rave reviews. The style is an all-new instrumental style of rock'n'roll and should not be confused with Surf Music. Many new and innovative techniques were developed for the playing of "Pirate Music" by World renowned guitarist Frank Lee Sprague, leader of the Sprague Brothers. The Sprague Brothers also wrote a novel to accompany their new style of rock'n'roll with the same name "Pirate Music". Over 25 full length albums of songs in the "Pirate Music" style exist by the Sprague Brothers and they continue to write and perform this innovative new style of music. They appeared on the TV show "Art Fein's Poker Party" throughout the '90's performing the new rock'n'roll style, and there is a website dedicated to the history of their new style of music: [73] The songs titles are based on actual events in the Golden Age of Piracy, and they are program-music so each piece reflects the story behind each title."
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an autobiography, based on the creator's username. There doesn't appear to be enough independent media coverage of the subject to merit an article. Dominic·t 12:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, non-sourced, frivolous article created by a indef-blocked sockpuppet. Article was then given an AfD template by User:Ryosh, but never properly completed. Adding the template was Ryosh's only edit, which is kinda weird, but I happen to agree with it. This is a nonsense article created by a disruptive user with many accounts. Suggest deletion. - eo (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep. Plastikspork (talk • contribs) 19:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article about a planned second season of an existing reality television show contains no substantial information beyond links to a casting call. It is basically pure advertisement and should be deleted as such until a verifiable airdate is published by a reliable source, at which point, it could be re-created. Plastikspork (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2009 (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)) . |
Delete fails WP:ORG, no significant coverage in reliable sources; sourced to its website and youtube. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 06:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not met. COI issues and written like an advert. 50,000th on Alexa. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was - Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 06:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NN org - no reliable sources independent of this organization detail it with the depth required by our notability guidelines Hipocrite (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable new website without significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources so failing WP:NOTE. Delete. Drawn Some (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod, not by me. This is a dictionary definition, and looks like it always will be; transwiki to Wiktionary Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No sources indicating individual notability. Recommend deleting/redirecting to KSMB (band). Aditya α ß 15:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 06:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although the album preformer is relatively notable, I can find little evidence, or sourcing that this particular album is notable. Seddσn talk|WikimediaUK 22:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Typically merges do not, for some reason, import tracklistings, so at the very least that information is being lost in such a course of action. 86.44.18.234 (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. the only objection/rationale from the nominator towards deletion has been resolved. Keeper | 76 21:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete - Even if the other article is created, this DAB is still unnecessary. The non-low power KCTJ would obviously be the "primary" topic, and could have a hatnote linking to the other page. A DAB is only recommended when there are 3 or more subjects. -- Atamachat 16:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]