Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 July 30
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete, especially given the campaign the people involved have been running to get the article kept. Wikipedia is not where things go to become notable. --Coredesat 05:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] YATE
- – (View AfD)
Organization lacks notability per WP:CORP. It is an article about a project that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. Calltech 18:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. 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 by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
- Delete per nom.--SarekOfVulcan 18:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep IMHO, the YATE falls quite in the category of Asterisk, OpenPBX (now called CallWeaver), Bayonne, SER/OpenSER, FreeSWITCH and, or other such software projects, so might want to delete all these too. Moreover, I don't mind even if you suggest deletion of the whole Wikipedia itself :( That's only an opinion and opinions may differ --Dheeman 12:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC) — Dheeman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete I originally deleted this as a spam article but was asked to reconsider and allow the article to improve. As the deletion was marginal I acceded. Clearly, the article has had time to improve and has but it still lacks independent reliable sources for verifiability and help establish notability. Without these, the article is not compliant and should be deleted. Note to Dheeman WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a reason to keep. Spartaz Humbug! 19:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--Davnel03 20:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep YATE is a powerful telephone engine. I believed you should keep this article. people know about Asterisk and they will learn about YATE! If you delete this article millions of people will miss a great opportunity to learn about YATE. --Madhawa_gnu 3 August 2007 — Madhawa_gnu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep I have to admit that i'm a part of the Yate project. What i can say is that Yate is a project made by a romanian team. And is obvious that is not well promoted, even if his functionality is as good as Asterisk let's say, or SER or Nextone. That's because we are more busy on development than on promoting Yate. Since promoting Yate is my job mainly i have to admit i'm not doing it very well, however i do hope that the quality of Yate even if is open source will be enough to make it important. -- Diana Cionoiu 3 August 2007— 83.166.206.79 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep YATE is the most friendly IVR I've ever used. It should be a part of wikipedia to let others know more about it. amirghasemi 14:20, 3 Aug 2007 (UTC)— amirghasemi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep YATE is a solid server with a great deal of flexability and ease of use. It is the only solution I have found to connect Nortel phone systems to a carrier via VoIP alone. Cmfrolick 22:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)— Cmfrolick (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep I agree that the article needs improving, however I disagree with Calltech on the grounds of notability. Specifically the referenced policy says that smaller entities are unlikely to have widespread coverage. The secondary source covering YATE is O'Reilly. IMO a not insignificant secondary source.--AnandKumria 03:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Yate is deployed surprising widely and therefore has some significance. Most notably yate provides SIP/H323 conversion and is hence deployed in quite some networks for exactly that purpose. gj101 07:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)— gj101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment The author of this article is engaging in a promotional campaign for this project and has posted a message on the YATE website requesting users to support her. Thus the recent flurry of single purpose accounts. This is blatant advertising and promotion. "Help Yate to become known" is the theme here. [12]. Calltech 12:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Actually the author of this article didn't promote the article. I did it. And since the problem with this article was that Yate is not well known i suppose that having users makes it well known. -- Diana Cionoiu 19.41 , 3 August 2007
- Keep Yate is a very robust and strong product with a large user base, and has significance as such. It is not a trivial product, and the Wikipedia entry should not be deleted as such. Simon 12:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Meh; funny about the sigs. Sr13 is almost Singularity 05:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Prosody Creative Services
- – (View AfD)
Marketing company involved in several notable events, but no indication that the company itself is well-known per WP:CORP. Also, given that author is User:Prosody07, there's a conflict of interest. NawlinWiki 16:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- I am currently gathering sources that will support the fact that Prosody is a notable event marketing company. Expect some more sources and information in the next few days. Am I right in believing that unless these changes do occur, the article will be deleted on August 4th? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prosody07 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 30 July 2007.
- If you don't have the sources now, you should wait to post the article until you have them. See WP:V. An AFD discussion ordinarily lasts for five days. NawlinWiki 16:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
|
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. 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 by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
- Delete- conflict of intrest, and per nom, see the name of the user that's editing it. The sunder king 16:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:N and WP:V. Note also that I have indefinitely blocked the author's username due to its inclusion of the company name. (I made sure it wasn't the user's surname first.) -- But|seriously|folks 16:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete, thinly disguised spam, conflict of interest. Realkyhick 17:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Save: I think the company is noteworthy enough.- LysanderAOP —Preceding unsigned comment added by LysanderAOP (talk • contribs)
- — LysanderAOP (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I agree with LysanderAOP. The company worked with Jamestown, plus the page looks pretty good already. User:Gooooba 2 August 2007
- — Gooooba (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete. Failed WP:CORP and it's a WP:SPAM. — Indon (reply) — 14:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Save. I don't think it failed WP:CORP and it is not a WP:SPAM. — theycallmemistapig (reply) — 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- — Theycallmemistapig (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Save. I checked the corporations rules, and there isn't anything that would clearly state a reason why this can't be an artilce. Read it for yourself and see! WP:CORP — (reply) — 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- — Rubbadubba (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- As someone who participated in some of the events listed, I say keep. I went to ANNIVERSSARY WEEK-END and it was beast. — FIGHTING MAN FROM THE BEACH (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Acalamari 21:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment to closing admin: I'm suspecting the author created multiple sockpuppets to raise voice here. There are a lot of single purpose account for this topic only. (The funny thing is that these sockpuppets copy pasted my signature literally) — Indon (reply) — 07:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No consensus. Young clearly meets WP:PROF and probably scrapes by WP:BIO given this source he provided. Concerns about the autobiographic/spammy nature of the article are raised and insufficiently reputed, but the article is still in progress, making these claims difficult to evaluate.
A side note about WP:PROF - researchs who are regularly quoted in multiple diverse newspapers are probably at the top of their field and notable - that's the point. My supervisor has been quoted a couple of times in the Toronto Star - this does not make her notable. If you threw in two dozen or so quotes for newspapers outside of Hogtown, then it might indicate that.
 |
This page in a nutshell: WP:BIO and WP:PROF seem to be at least marginally met - and the concerns about the spamm-i-ness are unresolved. |
[edit] Robert Young (longevity claims researcher)
- – (View AfD)
- Can I just add, it was pointless to change the template from gerontologist to longevity claims researcher? As a lot of us who have voted for keep, preferred to change the article to a better title. Some of the people whom have voted no, said they'd rather have the title changed to that as well. If you changed the title before the final decision, that's like changing the subject of what we voted for. Neal 19:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Autobiography. Not sure whether it satisfies WP:PROF. Errabee 12:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Note for closing admin: At least a couple of "keep" !votes were asked to vote here (though not told explicitly to vote keep/delete). [35] [36] I don't know if this rises to the level of a Votestacking violation. Abecedare 07:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Hopefully final comment from me: Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and room exists, like an 'unabridged dictionary', to keep whatever article is 'useful' to the reader. Is this article pertinent/useful? Anyone interested in the subject mattter of finding, locating,and verifying supercentenarians, as well as those interested in the theories of how long humans really live, would find this artcle useful, as it brings together a wide variety of material that one may not realize at first is linked. Past authors have created articles such as A. Ross Eckler Jr, Louis Epstein (supercentenarian tracker), etc which, despite having fewer references and less assertion of notability, have gone basically unchallenged. In this case, we find the challenges initially came from those with 'conflicts of interest'...Errabee was involved in a dispute over 'assessment' of other articles; some others who were involved in the Mary Ramsey Wood dispute, while notably not voting, did contribute comments against. In regards to 'votestacking', one does not see "Robert's mother" or "Robert's friend" voting...a common signal from a 'vanity' viewpoint. Instead, one sees voters who either were familiar with the subject (who mostly voted to keep despite never having met Robert in person and having been at odds with him in the past) and those voting to delete (mostly unfamiliar with the subject). If violations of the rules have come, they have come from both sides (normally a 'nominator' does not vote, for example; the page has been open for over the normal 5-day time used to make a decision). It seems that once the emotions are stripped away, however, we have a core class of similar, relevant articles. Notably, this article, David Allen Lambert, was created by David using a 'sockpuppet' and sourced with sources including his own blog and own work website...hardly the definition of fair, following the rules, or notability. Not only that, the article was created on the basis of newsmedia attention from a single case...the 'oldest professional baseball player' discovered...whose age ultimately turned out to be a mess (either 109, 111, or 113). By contrast, it could be argued that having worked on hundreds of cases, several of which exceeded the press mention of Silas Simmons (i.e. Maria Capovilla, Charlotte Benkner, Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan, Emiliano Mercado Del Toro, etc), that in the same way that a 'Hall of Famer' in baseball is rated based on 'career achievement', so wouldn't a long track record of success equate to more than just a single "15 minutes of fame" story...
Those that argue, moreover, that this article should be deleted on the basis that longevity-claims verification or debunking is not important have failed to note that such issues have been discussed in the literature for over a century (see, for example, William Thoms) and generally the issue has been championed by a few persons who gained notoriety in the literature. It is important for history's sake to chart the progression of ideas, methods, etc. regarding the approach to the subject of attempting to determine the life-span of humanity.
It should also be noted that the rationale for keeping the article is not merely that Robert is notable for 'finding/debunking claims' but for being a major organizer of efforts to advance the entire field. When scientists turned to experts for their journal articles, often two names especially came up:
Aging: The Reality: Demography of Human Supercentenarians -- Coles ...1, 1890, Living, 113*, W, M, Robert Young/Louis Epstein .... 27, 1893, Oct. 2, 2003, 110, 128, B, F, Robert Young/Louis Epstein ... biomed.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/content/full/59/6/B579/TA1 - Similar pages
When France's leading expert (Jean-Marie Robine, validator of the Jeanne Calment case) looked for help, who did he turn to?
[PDF] Emergence of Supercentenarians in Low Mortality CountriesFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML the internet by Louis Epstein with the help of Robert Young ..... England and Wales, by France Meslé and Jacques Vallin (INED) and Jean-Marie Robine ... user.demogr.mpg.de/jwv/pdf/AmActJournal2002.pdf - Similar pages
Some FIVE YEARS AGO we see Louis Epstein and Robert Young credited....
Whgen Guinness World Records looked for an expert to hire in 2005, they must have known already about Robert to have offered him the position.
Again, the best argument and summation of the situation:
Wiki says the following: "An academic repeatedly quoted in newspapers or newsmagazines may be considered to meet criterion 1. A small number of quotations, especially in local newsmedia, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark." This is very true of Robert Young, I have read at least half-a-dozen newspapers/online newspapers which cite Robert Young on his subject matter, and thus he meets the Academic notability requirements. I am also somewhat concerned that Errabee appears to have nominated AfD several articles that Robert Young has been involved with in what seems to be a punitive measure for him asking a reasonable question about the assessment of an article. RichyBoy 09:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Being quoted in a local newspaper for a local event is one thing...being quoted worldwide in newspapers, magazines, and journals spanning the globe is quite another. To be quoted from both the academic and public (media) sectors argues that the article could be validated from two perspectives.
It is true that some 'greats' have done things that gained multiple recognition. William Thoms was noted for inventing the term 'folklore' and for beginning the modern process of age validation research. Cal Ripken Jr didn't just play in 2,632 consecutive games; he also hit 431 home runs and had 3,000+ hits. Having achieved in multiple measures is a sign that someone is more than just a 'one-trick' pony. In every endeavor with an organization...from the GRG to Guinness to the Max Planck to the SRF to the SSA to the NECS...the primary motivation for inclusion was 'research,' not money. In each case Robert was asked/invited to participate by those who judged him worthy. Just as the best-qualified to judge a baseball player's career are other baseball players, so a jury of Robert's peers has already recognized him as someone to turn to for expert advice in the field. Surely that should be more than enough to qualify for an article. It seems, ultimately, that the main arguments against come from either one of two angles: A. the person doesn't know/care about the subject or B. an argument about honesty/rules/cheating. Yet we find on Robert's talk page an explanation for article creation as well as no attempt to hide who created the article. Had it not been for the interjection of controversy from other areas of Wikipedia, this article would have been created quietly and no one would have noticed or objected. Hence, it does seem the push for deletion is based on emotion and the rationale for keeping is based on an assessment of the material by those who know about it the best.
Sincerely, Robert Young
P.S.
In protest to the what I perceive as unfair treatment by some, I am not using my main 'Ryoung' moniker until this issue is resoleved. 74.237.28.5 05:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment: As I find I'm link #2 of the above - it takes me a while to integrate my thoughts. For example, it took me 3 days after that suggestion before I made my vote, and I'm here everyday. The only reason I added the entry in his article without voting was, I, too, was around to see the false 122 year-old claim get debunked to 97, so it was certainly something in my living memory to add to his article immediately. I've known Robert back to back for a little over 2 years now, it's not likely I wouldn't have voted if I wasn't reminded. Neal
- Weak keep. I think his positions with Guinness World Records and the Gerontology Research Group are notable. JulesH 14:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Per WP:BIO this article does not meet notability as the three sources cited are: this which just lists his name, this which is not independent of the subject and where he only is listed w/o a bio at his own institution (listed as a research assistant which is not a WP:PROF), and finally this which again is not independent of the subject and does not seem to give any info about the subject except that he is a claims investigator. None of these would satisfy the WP:RS needed to demonstrate notability. Aboutmovies 15:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: This appears to be a 'scorched-Earth/salt-the-Earth' attack launched because I effectively debunked the claim of Mary Ramsey Wood to be '120' years old in 1908. Note both users 'Aboutmovies' and 'Katr67' were involved in that dispute, so comments here from them seem to be a conflict of interest.Ryoung122 15:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 00:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep if adequately sourced. What needs sourcing is the claim to be the chief gerontology investigatory for Guinness and the GRG. Obviously not yet notable as an academic, but as an investigator he would indeed seem to be notable. Even non-academics can be important. DGG (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep This is not an autobiography, as Mr. Young didn't write the article.Delete Nominator wasn't clear about that, but Katr67 clears it up, as described below. Sad if you work for Guinness and even they won't promo your work. If the sourcing is there for the claim that he debunks bogus claims of longevity for Guiness, then that's notable.If true, he's the guy who votes "delete" or "keep" for the GBOWR, and probably has better grounds for his decisions than any of us.Mandsford 03:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment Ryoung122 started and wrote most of the content of the article. He claims the same credentials. How is this not an autobiography? Katr67 04:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Merge. As a research assistant with no/few publications who only graduated last year, the notability claim rests largely on the work for Guinness, which currently appears to be unreferenced. As Young has edited the article, perhaps someone should ask him to back up the statements? Even then, the investigative work appear to be largely sourcing documents, which doesn't seem sufficiently important to merit an article. (Do other Guinness investigators have articles?) I suggest merge with Gerontology Research Group with removal of unrelated material. Espresso Addict 10:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
DeleteVery Strong Delete or merge as above (for consensus). Should not be kept as this fails WP:BIO (as indicated above) as well as the COI WP:AUTO issues. (add: based on the comment left on my talk page, this is simply vanispamcruft.) Eusebeus 11:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)- KeepCzolgolz 21:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Wiki says the following: "An academic repeatedly quoted in newspapers or newsmagazines may be considered to meet criterion 1. A small number of quotations, especially in local newsmedia, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark." This is very true of Robert Young, I have read at least half-a-dozen newspapers/online newspapers which cite Robert Young on his subject matter, and thus he meets the Academic notability requirements. I am also somewhat concerned that Errabee appears to have nominated AfD several articles that Robert Young has been involved with in what seems to be a punitive measure for him asking a reasonable question about the assessment of an article. RichyBoy 09:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Do I agree with his stands in articles I'm involved with? Not at all!!! But I also do not hold grudges when looking at his accomplishments. His name has appeared in newspapers that I have read and articles I have researched. It may not be a strong Keep, but he is noteworthy in his field. Fyunck(click) 06:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Nominator delete. I've thought about Mr. Young's notability some more, and came back out of retirement just this one occasion to share my conclusion. Mr. Young calls himself a gerontologist; Gerontology is the study of aging on people (not the study of age-related diseases), and the effect of aging people on society. "Debunking" of longevity claims is not per se a part of gerontology, as it hardly serves any academic purpose (at least for gerontology, perhaps it serves a purpose for history). As such, Mr. Young's achievements as an academic are marginal at best and certainly don't meet WP:PROF (please note that this guideline applies to all academics, not just professors, which Mr. Young assumed without checking). Therefore, as a gerontologist he is not particularly noteworthy. His notability arises from his investigations into longevity claims, for which an academic degree is not required (as Mr. Young himself shows on his user page). This position is not more noteworthy than, say, a senior investigator of insurance fraud. I even dare to say that most investigators of insurance fraud have "debunked" far more than 100 cases. If by any chance the article is kept, it certainly should be renamed to Robert Young (longevity claim investigator), as he has no notability as a gerontologist. Errabee 10:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't that be 'rename'? Also, the argument now seems to question not just Robert Young but also an entire sub-field. Anyone in the field of gerontology knows that it is really am umbrella term, that the only thing that unites it is that the focus is 'old age/senescence' (particularly in humans). Gerontology may emcompass the biological, social, and psychological aspects of aging; gerontological policy includes issues such as financing old age and retirement.
ger·on·tol·o·gy (jĕr'ən-tŏl'ə-jē) n. The scientific study of the biological, psychological, and sociological phenomena associated with old age and aging.
However, it should be noted that the study of 'supercentenarians' involves much in old-age research. Investigating whether someone's age is true is simply the beginning. Why do women live longer than men? Why do thin people live longer than fat people? Why do some people age more quickly than others? Are there any genetic, racial, or national differences in longevity? What social factors are in play? What about urban/rural? A little research shows that there is a discipline within biological gerontology that seeks to answer questions based on studying the extremes of longevity...and for which, the necessary of ensuring that the research is based on accurately reported ages is paramount. I suggest you read this article:
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/demography/v040/40.4rosenwaike.html
131.96.70.164 04:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment Since when is citing sources,
http://www.globalaging.org/health/us/2006/longevityclues.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5293436.stm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-08-28-oldest-person_x.htm
http://www.hindu.com/2006/08/29/stories/2006082904102200.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14550820/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11497251/
when that is what you asked for, vanispamcruft? You simply lowered yourself to mudslinging. Delete or not, you have shown your colors and then are not good. Simply attacking someone for answering the question is ridiculous.Ryoung122 16:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Response
To make it fair to readers who may not wish to read everything from one source, I have made a separate section with my response. The debate continues in the next section.
Greetings,
Actually I'm glad this vote came about because in a democracy, we are judged by a 'jury of our peers.' And ultimately the community decides what or who is notable. However, another concept of Western democracy is that decisions be based on the best information available at the time, and that a 'defendant' be able to present his/her case.
So far, this article has been criticized or suggested for deletion based on the following grounds: WP:PROF, WP: BIO, WP: RS and WP: AUTO. As it would make for a stacked-deck argument together, I plan to challenge each one separatley. I start with the argument that I believe is least relevant: 'autobiography.'
1. Reading the policy page, I find this:
This page is considered a content guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.
The problem with autobiographies It is said that Zaphod Beeblebrox's birth was marked by earthquakes, tidal waves, tornadoes, firestorms, the explosion of three neighbouring stars, and, shortly afterwards, by the issuing of over six and three quarter million writs for damages from all of the major landowners in his Galactic sector. However, the only person by whom this is said is Beeblebrox himself, and there are several possible theories to explain this.
– The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams
Typical problems with autobiographies include:
They are often biased, usually positively. People will write overly positively about themselves, and often present opinions as facts. Wikipedia aims to avoid presenting opinions as facts. (Neutral point of view does not mean simply writing in the third person). They can be unverifiable. If the only source for a particular fact about you is you yourself, then readers cannot verify it. (One common area where this is the case is with hopes, dreams, thoughts, and aspirations. There is no way for readers to verify what you think.) Everything in Wikipedia articles must be verifiable. They can contain original research.
Typical problems with autobiographies include:
They are often biased, usually positively. People will write overly positively about themselves, and often present opinions as facts. Wikipedia aims to avoid presenting opinions as facts. (Neutral point of view does not mean simply writing in the third person). They can be unverifiable. If the only source for a particular fact about you is you yourself, then readers cannot verify it. (One common area where this is the case is with hopes, dreams, thoughts, and aspirations. There is no way for readers to verify what you think.) Everything in Wikipedia articles must be verifiable. They can contain original research.
It is not impossible to write a neutral, verifiable autobiography, and they are not strictly forbidden.
So, we see that 'it is not impossible to write a neutral, verifiable autobiography, and they are not strictly forbidden.'
In fact, read the example entry from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and then read mine. I don't start out with a long discussion of why my birth was special, about my family, or how I got to where I am today. Instead, I presented a collection of short information that, like a news article, begins with the most important first and then fleshes out the point. Third, whether this 'tends to advance me or not' it should be relevant, firstly, because if notations are made to articles about supercentenarian claims (such as Mary Ramsey Wood) and a reader begins to think, 'who is this guy'? 'what does he know about this case?' 'why should I believe him?' then it becomes paramount to have a wikilinked article that leads back to me. Considering, in the constellation of Wikipedia, we have over 200 articles on 'supercentenarians' alone and ones about longevity myths, longevity claims, and past and present researchers such as William Thoms, A. Ross Eckler, Jr and Louis Epstein, I find exlcuding myself really doesn't make a lot of sense.Ryoung122 16:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
2. Wikipedia: Professor. Since I am not a professor, nor have I claimed to be, that comment and policy does not apply.Ryoung122 16:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
3. Assertions of WP: BIO and WP:RS.
Since the argument seems to hinge on the lack of reliable, independent sources, I plan to lay out some sources here. It would be unfair to assert that there are no sources, when in fact there are plenty.
A. Assertion of being with Guinness:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11497251/ (article on Yone Minagawa, world's oldest person; source is MSNBC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5293436.stm (article on Maria Capovilla, world's oldest person; source is BBC)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-08-28-oldest-person_x.htm (USA Today seems notable)
http://www.hindu.com/2006/08/29/stories/2006082904102200.htm (The Hindu, a national newspaper for India)
B. Assertion of being with the GRG:
http://www.grg.org/JZaslowWSJ.htm
(Wall Street Journal)
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/09/24/TampaBay/She_s_America_s_oldes.shtml
(St. Petersburg Times) (this from 2002)
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001943934_oldestobit01.html (a major newspaper; this was from 2004)
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03327/242936.stm (Pittsburgh PA: this is 2003)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/12/BAG61QV5G31.DTL&feed=rss.bayarea
(the San Francisco Chronicle)
C. Assertion of working on the 'Wisdom of the World's Oldest People':
http://www.globalaging.org/health/us/2006/longevityclues.htm
If you don't believe me, you can buy the book on Amazon.com.
D. Assertion of working with the New England Centenarian Study:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/547228
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2006.00826.x
E. Other sources
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/rej.2006.9.503?cookieSet=1
(Rejuvenation Research)
NPR : The Secrets of America's SupercentenariansThey're of particular interest to the Gerontology Research Group, gerontologists, ... ELLIS: Robert Young became the senior claims investigator of the GRG. ... www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4054195 - Similar pages
(National Public Radio)
[CR] Centenarians, diet vs genes, sex ratio Part 2For a complete validation of the age of a supercentenarian, it is frequently ..... 16, 1889 Living 114* WF Robert Young Spain Spain Joan Riudavets Dec. ... lists.calorierestriction.org/pipermail/cr_lists.calorierestriction.org/2007-January/003499.html - 44k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages
[PDF] grna-59-06-11 579..586File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat the age of a supercentenarian, it is frequently necessary to ..... member is Robert Young of Atlanta, Georgia, a GRG senior claims ... biomed.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/reprint/59/6/B579.pdf - Similar pages
In summation, I can be found in thousands of sources from six continents. To continue listing more would be a disproportionate response (some might think this already is; however, given that the assertion was mainly lack of sources, it makes sense to provide sources). The assertion for notability/raison d'etre for this article is that I am one of the, if not the, 'world's leading expert' in the field of supercentenarian research. To peg me to just one group when I am involved in so many isn't really the best answer. Proviving a separate article page on Wikipedia is. When others float a controversial claimant, and it turns out to be not true, then others will wonder what credentials I might have to make this assertion. It makes sense, then, to have this article and list everything in the proper place. If others disagree it is their right to vote differently but I believe I have made a case. Some of the articles are from years ago, so there is a consistent pattern over time, not just a '15-minutes of fame' story.
However, it could be said that the story isn't really about me, it's about an idea: how long to people really live? In cases like these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Coates
People are continually making up false age claims. Getting the message out there about how long humans really live seems to be the REAL and MOST IMPORTANT issue here.
Have a nice day.Ryoung122 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Debate continues
- Comment Neither Aboutmovies or I started the Afd, nor have I actually "voted" in this debate. I simply marked the the article as being an autobiography and commented about the article's status as an autobiography in this debate. For my part, this has nothing to do with the Mary Wood article except that when debunking the woman's age, he wrote an article on himself so that he could cite himself as a source in the Wood article. As discussed at length on the Wood talk page, we aren't particularly concerned about the woman's supposed age, but about the methodology used to provide sources, which seems to not follow Wikipedia policy about original research and reliable sources. Katr67 16:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment Ryoung: Please note that your above comment about a scorched earth campaign is not only incorrect, but is a personal attack. Nothing in my comments here are related to the Wood issue, other than you left a link there to your autobiography. Once seeing that article my immediate response is that it does not meet WP:BIO as I have explained above. Thus when someone nominated it for AFD, I weighed in. As a member of the Biography WikiProject, and a frequent AFD person, I am pretty familiar with what should and should not be included along the lines of bios (and corporations too) per Wikipedia guidelines/policies. This autobiography does not meet WP:BIO. Could it? Maybe, but as it is now, it does not. Aboutmovies 16:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment. I find your focus on the need for an article to be solely or mainly about the subject to be missing the point. Wikipedia is not a memorial, yet you are a strong advocate of the Mary Ramsey Wood 'bio' being not just significant but of 'mid' importance. Mid for what? Because she was recognized by the governor? Politicians issue commendations all the time; it's like shaking hands or kissing a baby. When did she 'establish' significance? At her death? If that's the case, you're violating the 'Wikipedia is not a memorial' policy.Ryoung122 22:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- What does the Wood article have to do with this debate? If you have issues with the Wood article, discuss them at the talk page for that article. Please stay focused on the debate here. Aboutmovies 22:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I find your focus on the need for an article to be solely or mainly about the subject to be missing the point. Wikipedia is not a memorial, yet you are a strong advocate of the Mary Ramsey Wood 'bio' being not just significant but of 'mid' importance. Mid for what? Because she was recognized by the governor? Politicians issue commendations all the time; it's like shaking hands or kissing a baby. When did she 'establish' significance? At her death? If that's the case, you're violating the 'Wikipedia is not a memorial' policy.Ryoung122 22:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
-
Per Wikipedia:Notability: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive. From the MSNBC article: Tomoji Tanabe, 111, was born Sept. 18, 1895, and lives in the southern city of Miyazaki, according to Robert Young, senior consultant for gerontology for Guinness World Records. This is the only mention of Young in the article. Thus that is trivial coverage and not “Significant coverage” needed for notability of people as covered here “Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.” Wikipedia needs an article on you, not the people you study as are what all of the articles in the section “A. Assertion of being with Guinness” are. Aboutmovies 16:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment: The article is about the position, and one can hardly consider coverage 'trivial' when the point of being in there is, ironically, to serve as a SOURCE...an assertion that the newspaper didn't make this story up, someone else out there is 'vouching' for the information to be true. From this perspective, the coverage need not be a 'biography'...Ryoung122 17:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- OK, out of all of those sources added above, only the one that is a re-print from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution qualifies as significant coverage. It is actually about Robert Young. But I don't think one is enough. Do you have more like that? Had it been an entire biography in book form, that would be enough, but not one article in the local/regional paper. Aboutmovies 17:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
See also the Wall Street Journal article (on page 1). Or perhaps check out the 2007 Guinness Book (hardcover edition) and see page 2.Ryoung122 17:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- You are mentioned twice in the WSG article that is about the GRG. This would be "trivial coverage". With Guiness, you worked for them, thus not independent. Aboutmovies 18:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I think it is a sad state of current humanity when persons claim notions of unbiased, fair assessments, when in fact we find issues like this:
Greetings,
I questioned the downgrading of this article by 'Errabee':
[edit] Assessment of 'Surviving Veterans' Article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Surviving_veterans_of_World_War_I
Greetings,
Please explain your downgrading of this article's rating. I do not believe that the "B" class description is the most accurate, and it should be upgraded or at least undergo 'peer review.'
Ryoung122 01:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The response was an attempt to list the article for deletion, which failed...and also included listing THIS article for deletion. Thus once again, we see circumstantial evidence for those opposing this article's existence linked to disputes and vendettas, not personal notions of objective assessment.
Note the vote in favor of keep was by an extremely large margin (over 90%). Thus it seems the issue is that Errabee's 'ego' was offended by my questioning of his article downgrade and a request for an article review.Ryoung122 18:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment. This is really rich. I downgraded an article from A-class to B-class, because A-class didn't feel right to me. When Robert Young (Ryoung122), with whom I never had any dealings whatsoever, asked me to explain, I naturally took another look at it to find out why it didn't feel right to me. Because I had to reflect further on this article, this resulted in my decision to put it up for AfD. When I went to Ryoung122's talk page to give my reasons for downgrading it a B-class article and putting it up for AfD, a talk page entry about his autobiography was one of the last entries. It got my attention, so I took a look at it and was unsure if it met the notability guidelines. I decided to put it up for deletion to get it decided one way or the other. Ryoung122 labelling this as a vendetta is a gross overstatement (as vendettas have very long histories whereas I met Ryoung122 on Wikipedia only a day ago); I haven't even had a dispute with him. It's therefore not my 'ego' that is the problem, but Robert Young's hurt ego about the downgrading of one of his babies. It is people like Robert Young with their inflated ego's who take away the pleasure of being a wikipedian, and I am afraid this is the proverbial last straw for me. I am too tired to bother anymore about Wikipedia. I have nicer things to do in real life. Best wishes everybody. Errabee 01:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
You think this hasn't been a trying/degrading experience for me as well? The main purpose of the article was so to provide MORE INFORMATION to the user, NOT write an entire autobiographical novel. In the same way that a 'category' links articles with a common theme, so it made sense that the next step in the 'evolution' of a supercentenarian-research family tree was the creation of small biographical articles that link the work done in that time period...whether the 1870's or the 1990's or whatever. NO ONE would find the article unless they were looking for it. There was no 'site-meter' counter, or a link-SPAM to some article being SOLD. The article was curt and to the point. Also, it seems the whole debate centers on mis-using half-truths. "Triviality" includes things such as 'bank statements'. It does NOT include being listed as the authoritative source for more than 1,000 news articles, research papers, and major media including BBC, CNN, National Public Radio, the United Nations, etc.
Ego? It seems that nearly every objection here was based on ego, such as Traynor's comments like this one: "complaints about the process, Wiki cliques or the like -- are invariably counterproductive to the article's survival." So, after voting for 'delete' and with a page relishing how angry he obviously makes a lot of people (with a disclaimer about don't e-mail him about it, one can only imagine), Wikipedia 'vote for deletion' has become a mockery, a blood-sport. Those that 'kiss the ring' and kneel/submit are spared...I could literally cite thousands of deletable pages that have survived for over a year...but one dare to barge into another's area of 'expertise' and who-hoo, nay-saying at its best. But ultimately I welcome this. It sharpens my focus on what I haven't done yet, and need to do. Clearly, being #1 in the world slaving behind the curtain isn't enough...selling oneself (prostituting) to win a popularity contest is what really counts. Spare me. Wikipedia has already run off Louis Epstein. The literature of age-validation research has been out for 130 years, but it seems that people would rather fall for the claim that Habib Miyan is '137' because that means they can put off until later thinking about their own mortality. In fact, voting on Wikipedia makes one feel immortal. Sorry folks, unless someone figures out how to transhumanize you, you're doomed.
Ok, and now back to this article...it serves its point and it should have passed 'notability' with flying colors. At least three sources? Try 3,000. "Non-trivial?" Being the cited authority is not trivial; being cited in a bank statement is. Not knowing the difference? Complete stupidity.
It is said the ultimate judge of importance in a field is by a jury of one's peers--such as Jean-Marie Robine of France, James Vaupel from Germany, Bernard Jeune from Denmark, Roger Thatcher from England, etc. Clearly, Wikipedia isn't. Other noted researchers from around the world know who I am. More than that, I have helped shape and advance the field in the past decade, pushing it from a backwater to a suddenly front-burner issue. Just wait, you haven't seen anything yet.
When Europe decided to compile an international database on longevity, they asked for the help of two persons in particular...Louis Epstein and Robert Young.
JSTOR: The World Trend in Maximum Life SpanJOHN R. WILMOTH / JEAN-MARIE ROBINE to the Swedish trend in the maximum age at death, ..... Axel Skytthe, Roger Thatcher, Jacques Vallin, and Robert Young. ... links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0098-7921(2003)29%3C239%3ATWTIML%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O - Similar pages
[PDF] Emergence of Supercentenarians in Low Mortality CountriesFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML the internet by Louis Epstein with the help of Robert Young ..... England and Wales, by France Meslé and Jacques Vallin (INED) and Jean-Marie Robine ... user.demogr.mpg.de/jwv/pdf/AmActJournal2002.pdf - Similar pages
As for Guinness, they ASKED ME to help them, I didn't apply for the job. I was well known before then, which explains why they asked, does it not.
But of course, who needs to know about history, about gerontology, or the truth about human aging? Just turn on your TV and watch "America's Got Talent" and let the mindless display begin.74.237.28.5 05:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: I imagine being a senior researcher for Guinness is a worthy post and all, but I don't see what of the criteria in WP:BIO and WP:PROF this subject passes. Only one link satisfies WP:V, instead of the multiple, non-trivial sources required. Beyond everything else, the extreme defensiveness of Ryoung122 about what he's described as "his" article serves as classic examples why WP:OWN and WP:COI are official policies and guidelines, never mind at least one WP:CANVASS dinger at a talk page. I urge Mr. Young to take both to heart and sit on his hands. As policy suggests, if the article stands on its own merits, it will without lengthy diatribes here and at several other places. If he believes that nom is acting in poor faith (a defensible proposition, although Errabee wouldn't be the first editor to check out someone with whom he was having a dispute and thinking "Holy frack, he's got an article on himself?"), there are other avenues of dispute resolution available. RGTraynor 19:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment Ok, why don't you add WP: POINT to the list of 'offenses'. The below article was started by David Allen Lambert himself, using a sockpuppet, and the sources listed don't seem to satisfy any of the suddenly much-higher requirements now cited for 'this' article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Allen_Lambert
Yet no one nominated that article for deletion, and his 'claim to fame' seemed to be 'discovering/verifying' the age of a single individual...the 'oldest living baseball player.' Yet I find multiple individuals, year in, year out, and that amounts to 'triviality'? Case not made.
But to me the biggest point seems to be how the 'rules' on Wikipedia are selectively enforced, and decisions which should be made by impartial observers often are the result of 'edit-warring' instead...sadly, humanity favors emotion over logic. Further, it seems that 'assertions of notability' are often made by the Wikipedians themselves...akin to having '10,000 friends' on MySpace.
I actually contributed to Wikipedia for more than a year before I started my own 'user ID/talk' page. Wikipedia is a TOOL and the goal should be to educate the world with impartiality and fairness. The assertion that I should 'sit on my hands' and do/say nothing seems silly, especially when uninformed comments are made (i.e. 'no proof of X or Y') when a simple search of Google would show that you can't find one factual assertion to be in error.
I do believe the article would stand alone if an impartial third-party observer came along and commented (or started the article). However, I understand that stacked deck situations usually result in 'sinking'...it's why politicians result to political scandal in the weeks leading up to an election.Ryoung122 20:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Reply: A few hundred articles a day are AdDed, prodded or speedied. That there are articles which don't meet Wikipedia standards and haven't yet been subjected to process is not remotely a compelling reason why yours must survive. If you feel that the Lambert article fails WP:BIO, feel free to file an AfD on it. In the meantime, while you are touting your credentials, I'll point to my own experience. I've participated in hundreds of AfD discussions, and my experience is that repeated, rambling defenses of articles by their creators and/or subjects -- especially where they stray off the subject to focus on general complaints about the process, Wiki cliques or the like -- are invariably counterproductive to the article's survival. You needn't follow my advice, of course. RGTraynor 20:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but I see that as a weakness in both humanity and Wikipedia; objectivity is rarely achieved on AFD.Ryoung122 21:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Very strong keep: He is very much notable and a reputable source, just as Mr. Louis Epstein, S. Jay Olshansky, ... . Extremely sexy 09:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete It's hard for me not to see this as a case of vanity, and only the subject's claims and the assumption of good faith keeps me from doing so. There is almost nothing in that article that does not distinguish it from a CV or resume -- which is my rule of thumb for inclusion, & based on his numerous responses if such material existed it would be there. As for the need to provide one central location for his references or sources, he is welcome to create a page in his user space for that purpose. -- llywrch 16:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. User pages don't add Wikilinks. Further, the need for a Wikilink (more information) suggests the need for an article. Third, a User Page may include material extraneous to the subject, whereas an article (like a newspaper article) is meant to be succinct and focus on only the material related to the notability. If someone included 'won class spelling bee in 5th grade' that would be vanity. Including material related to why Person X would be in the media in the first place is not.131.96.70.164 04:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Vote. I vote to rename this article to Robert Young (longevity claims researcher). He isn't a gerontologist. He could be categorized as a gerontologist if he had a Ph.D. in gerontology or the equivalent of a Nobel in gerontology, but that hasn't happened yet. He isn't the first of this category (longevity claims researcher), this has been going for much longer time, just became increasingly fast in the past 15-20 years. Guinness has been doing this since it's origin in 1955; one of the notable earliest was Alexander Graham Bell for validating the oldest woman in the world during World War I. It basically comes down to, do you think age verification is important? Robert's been in over a thousand articles, news and journal, on 6 continents. However, his biographical article will be part of a new article on age verification, the process of debunking unsubstantial claims, and verifying cases - and then, other people in his field, will have to be listed. Robert Young is particularly responsible for U.S. cases for the Gerontologt Research Group; there are then correspondents for other countries like France, Germany, and Italy (which have their own longevity claims researcher). Robert might have debunkked/undebunked more cases than anyone else mainly because the U.S. has the highest centenarian population of any country, but longevity claims researcher for smaller countries like the Netherlands will have to be listed too. Neal 17:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete or userfy. I don't see how this should pass WP:BIO, or how the subject is more notable than the senior accountant for the Guinness Book of Records. Since User:Ryoung122 seems so keen on putting this information onto Wikipedia, I recommend he posts it on his userpage. ~ trialsanderrors 01:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment. You don't see how Robert Young will pass the WP:BIO? Well, I found 1 example that suits his criteria: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." His field? That's longevity claims debunker/bunker. That is, he specializes in validating the age of people.
-
- Comment: Terrific. I wrote the first known compendium of Orczy's The_Scarlet_Pimpernel works; that's a "field" too. I don't figure that gets me a pass on WP:BIO. RGTraynor 05:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Anways, I personaly feel Young's article is more relevant than others. Take these 3 for example:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Pata - Noted for being shot.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Blaho - Noted for being in a car accident.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliana_Ramos - Noted for dying of anorexia.
- What makes these people have their own Wikipedia article? For being on a news site, right? Getting media attention? You can find hundreds of those listing Robert Young in the news. Neal 04:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment Please note that "Other Crap Exists" is not a valid argument. Please judge this page on its own merits. Canadian Paul 16:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment It wasn't an argument to begin with. It was examples of how easy it is for people to get their own biography page on Wikipedia just for having media attention. This meant that, "anyone on the news" can have their own Wikipedia page, and I used that as an analogy to how many times Young has been in the news. Neal 19:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Comment OK, then "Other Crap Exists" is not a valid point/example/analogical tool. Just because those articles do exist doesn't necessairly mean that they should. Canadian Paul 21:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Keep. Robert Young is notable in his capacity as Senior Consultant for Gerontology for the Guinness World Records. This is a major role within an integral part of the best selling copyrighted series of books in the world. There is no doubt that Mr Young is an eminent and renowned person in his field. It may be the case that Mr Young has contributed to the creation and editing of the article but what better source of reference can there be? This on its own surely does not constitute a vanity article. The vanity articles I have come across make spurious and exaggerated claims purely for the "oxygen of publicity". The article in question sticks to the facts and makes no vain statements that I am aware of. There has been criticism that the article partially resembles a CV but how does any biographical article avoid this entirely?! There is certainly room for modification and improvement but IMHO there is no valid reason for deletion. Rrsmac 01:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I guess it really doesn't make that much of a difference to me whether this article stays or goes, but I think one of the biggest problems that people seem to be having (including myself) is that it was written by the subject itself. WP:AUTO is bad and all that. I think the people who are voting for keep should be prepared to completely rewrite the article - blank the page and recreate it themselves. As linked to in WP:AUTO, everything must be verifiable and no original research is allowed and, from looking at the article, I can see where there are arguably violations to that. Anyhow, if this does stay, people who voted keep should keep it up and people who voted delete should make sure that, at the very least, it satisfies verifiability and WP:NOR. Voting comes with a responsibility. Canadian Paul 16:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Look, in all honesty I fail to see how being a researcher for a book of world records is a sufficient claim to notability. Almost all mentions in independent external media (with the exception of one) are passing and trivial, often consisting of nothing more than a small quote. Validating and debunking claims longevity claims certainly is interesting, and there should indeed be an article about it, and perhaps the supercentenarians themselves are notable, but in any case, I find it highly doubtful that being the person who authenticates the ages of supercenetarians for a record book can justify notability. Calgary 18:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. If persons find me non-notable, so be it. But let me set the facts straight. First of all, Guinness World Records is the #1 best-selling book of all-time (and second-most distributed, behind the Bible). Not only that, but Guinness considers the age record to be one of the most prestigious, and Guinness editions written some 20-plus years ago said this:
As the Guinness Book of World Records stated in numerous editions from the 1960s to the 1980s, "No single subject is more obscured by vanity, deceit, falsehood, and deliberate fraud than the extremes of human longevity."
Hence Guinness World Records has long considered the 'oldest person' records to be among the most prestigious but also the most difficult to verify/research of any record...in part because 'we are all at it' (anyone could CLAIM to be the world's oldest person). Hence, the topic is much more than a typical 'Guinness researcher'. Yet I could cite others...experts on the tallest tree (Steve Sillett) or twins (Craig and Mark Sanders), for example. In my view, if someone contributes a new understanding/way of thinking about a subject in a scientific manner, than it is far more than simply an issue of 'position.'
Second, I also note that user Calgary is involved in the species integration dispute, so once again we see possible conflicts of interest.
Third, one reason I created this article is because the Wiki: AUTO policy stated that, although strongly discouraged, it is not expressly forbidden. If this is not the case, the policy needs to be re-written to state as much.
Perhaps the most important argument, however, is that I am more than just the researcher for the toughest record in the best-selling book of all time. If that were the case, you wouldn't find my name in thousands of citations, such as:
Results 1 - 10 of about 46,700 for Robert+Young+Louis+Epstein+Jean-Marie+Robine. (0.12 seconds)
Deaths for 2003 as of January 16, 20041, 1893, June 1, 2003, 110, 151, W, F, Louis Epstein/Robert Young, ########, ######## ... 7, 2003, 112, 146, W, F, Jean-Marie Robine/Laurent Toussaint ... www.grg.org/Adams/Deaths2003.HTM - 97k - Cached - Similar pages
2004 Deaths, as of February 15, 200711, 2004, 110, 12, W, F, Jean-Marie Robine/Peter Goldblatt. 11, England (UK), England (UK) .... 21, 2004, 112, 27, W, F, Louis Epstein/Robert Young ... www.grg.org/Adams/Deaths2004.HTM - 45k - Cached - Similar pages [ More results from www.grg.org ]
Aging: The Reality: Demography of Human Supercentenarians -- Coles ...1, 1890, Living, 113*, W, M, Robert Young/Louis Epstein .... 7, 2003, 112, 146, W, F, Jean-Marie Robine/Laurent Toussaint ... biomed.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/content/full/59/6/B579/TA1 - Similar pages
[PDF] Table of World-Wide Living SupercentenariansFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat Jean-Marie Robine. Delvina Dahlheimer. U.S. (MN). Dec. 31, 1888. Mar. 13, 2002. 113. 72. w. f. Louis Epstein/Robert Young. Antonio Todde ... www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/10945450260195667 - Similar pages
[PDF] Supercentenarians Tables Validated Supercentenarian Cases Aged 114 ...File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat Jean-Marie Robine/. Robert Young. tie. U.S. (IL). Wilhelmina Kott .... piled for publication by Mr. Louis Epstein of. New York and Mr. Robert Young of ... www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/rej.2006.9.503 - Similar pages [ More results from www.liebertonline.com ]
[PDF] Workshop on Supercentenarians, May 8 2002 Atlanta, GeorgiaFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML 9:15 a.m. --- Jean-Marie Robine: “The Emergence of Supercentenarians in Low Mortality. Countries”. 9:45 a.m. --- Robert Young: “Problems with ... www.demogr.mpg.de/calendar/files/15716.951751709-Workshop%20Program.pdf - Similar pages
[PDF] AgendaFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML 9:00 a.m. --- Robert Young: “Age 115 and Beyond: A Closer Look At American Cases”. 9:20 a.m. --- Louis Epstein: “Observed Life Expectancy of ... www.demogr.mpg.de/calendar/files/51736.8836975098-Workshop%20Program.pdf - Similar pages
Wikipedia:WikiProject Academics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaLouis Epstein and Robert Young. JSTOR: The World Trend in Maximum Life SpanJOHN R. WILMOTH / JEAN-MARIE ROBINE to the Swedish trend in the maximum age at ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academics - 153k - Cached - Similar pages
Robert Young (gerontologist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJean-Marie Robine of France, validator of the Jeanne Calment case, is working with ... Unlike Louis Epstein, Young has provided a list of credits for each ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Young_(gerontologist) - 29k - Cached - Similar pages
[PDF] Emergence of Supercentenarians in Low Mortality CountriesFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML the internet by Louis Epstein with the help of Robert Young ..... England and Wales, by France Meslé and Jacques Vallin (INED) and Jean-Marie Robine ... user.demogr.mpg.de/jwv/pdf/AmActJournal2002.pdf - Similar pages
Galileo wasn't popular, either, because he espoused views--such as heliocentrism--that contradicted the establishment of the day. Perhaps the best argument for the need for articles on both supercentenarians and supercentenarian researchers is the public's lack of understanding of the subject. 74.237.28.5 05:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Response Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me, please don't ever make unwarranted accusations about my intentions or my character. As far as I'm aware, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a user participating in multiple deletion discussions for pages created by the same user. The two articles and discussions are entirely independent of one another, and my participation will not have any concievable effect on the other. If you're suggesting that I'm somehow biased against you simply because I've participated in deletion discussions for multiple pages of your creation, all i'm going to say is that's a very, very, very long stretch. So please, be a bit more considerate before you go around saying "conflict of interest", and think about the implications you're making about both my character and my motivations. Calgary 07:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The Gerontology Research Group is notable, hence so is Robert. --Michael C. Price talk 20:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Hate to be the policy police, but I haven't voted on this. Anyhow, notability is not inherited. Canadian Paul 21:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Response I'll give you some more policy improve, don't delete. --Michael C. Price talk 06:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Response Sort of like what I wrote here? To reiterate, if this article can be rewritten from verifiable sources from all these people who are voting to keep, then I have no problem with it being kept. Canadian Paul 20:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Response Paul is right. Voting comes with responsibilities. I haven't voted here and do not plan to, because I cannot be impartial; I nominated two of Robert's articles for deletion myself. But this I will do: if the this biography article is kept in the end, I volunteer to help rewrite it from ground up, from references. Just give me the references. Fred Hsu 22:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Response Sort of like what I wrote here? To reiterate, if this article can be rewritten from verifiable sources from all these people who are voting to keep, then I have no problem with it being kept. Canadian Paul 20:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Response I'll give you some more policy improve, don't delete. --Michael C. Price talk 06:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. My first vote here. Basically same reason Michael C. Price talk gives above. The change in the title could be done if that makes everybody happy, but it gets into the problem of whether or not you need a formal title and degree to be called an "-ologist" of anything. I would argue that this distinction should be made by publication. There are any number of world renouned experts on any number of topics, who have no formal degree in what it is they're famous for knowing. This especially applies to new fields. Galileo didn't have a degree in physics, because the field didn't exist. He (as much as anybody) invented it. And there was no degree in planetary astronomy for Kepler. It was called "astrology." The inventor of the steam engine had no degree. Must we stop calling him an "engineer"? Winston Churchill graduated from a military college, but had no degree in history. Must we stop referring to him as a historian? And so on.SBHarris 20:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I do have a degree in gerontology from Georgia State University. However, if it makes everyone happy, we can 'rename' this to Robert Young (longevity claims researcher). Even though I do more than that in both gerontology and other fields (I have two degrees in history, so I could be an 'historian' as well), it is what I am best-known for.74.237.28.5 07:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. From reading this discussion, and following the links and references, it seems that this page is far too autobiographical in nature, though I wouldn't see too much of a problem if it was rebuilt with more reliable sources without any autobiographical help.Ravenmasterq 23:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak delete. WP:PROF says "merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable". The Gerontology Research Group appears notable and viewed as an authority on the subject by reliable sources. However, simply being a spokesperson for a notable organization is insufficient for a person's notability. Subject does appear to be a participant in publications in academic journals but it's not clearly demonstrated from independent reliable sources that the individual's body of work is regarded as notable within his field. This appears to be a case of a researcher who is quite possibly notable but who may have to wait for the world to recognize the true scope of his accomplishments. Canuckle 00:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I find this situation funny. In my opinion, this article is just about as notable as Angela Beesley (e.g., being a spokesperson or founder of a notable organization, but the notability of the person itself is disputed). However, Beesley article was kept, after six attempts for deletion, despite the subject's wishes to have her article deleted. But now we have an article that is likely to be deleted despite the subject's wishes to keep it! Are we doing it just to spite people? Is this a punishment for breaking the autobiography taboo, which is not even a policy? It shouldn't matter who wrote the article or whether there is a conflict of interest or not. What should matter is whether the article is verifiable and the topic notable enough. Nothing else matters. --Itub 07:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Canuckle. Robertissimo 08:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Delete due to concerns about notability; most of the links and references provided do not really back up the substance of the article. Possibly worth a merge into Gerontology Research Group, but this might skew that article since Mr Young looks to be a fairly minor figure in that organistation. EyeSereneTALK 09:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete, arguments for keeping are mostly refuted and are not based in policies or guidelines. --Coredesat 05:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Simply FOBulous
- – (View AfD)
Not notable enough maybe? It did appear at many film festivals tough, according to the official site. The problem is the lack of external references beside IMD b. Kl4m 04:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable. Only SIX votes on IMDb. The tagline made me laugh, though... --Closedmouth 06:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- DO NOT DELETE The film has a national retail distribution deal through Mill Creek Entertainment You can find it online at a variety of places including Target, Circuit City, Best Buy, Silver Platters, Sam Goody, etc. Check out [55] for more information. This is a bona-fide motion picture release with retail distribution throughout north america. it only has 6 votes on IMDB because it was only released as of July 24th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.132.168 (talk) 02:46, 30 July 2007
- Note on above comment: The comment above was made by a anonymous user that became active only a few hours ago. Additionally, it is probable this user is User:Dolphman69's sock-puppet. I recommend disregarding this nonsense. -- VegitaU 06:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- ""Keep"", Sock Puppet? I forgot to login. Sorry, yes it was Dolphman, but none of this is nonsense, I'm new to Wiki, so sorry if I don't meet all the protocols. But seriously, just do a little research and see for yourself. Here's a list of all the external resources available. Please make your decision ONLY after carefully reviewing the following:
ReelIndies.com - Distribution Company releasing the film domestically in the US to major retail outlets in partnership with Mill Creek Entertainment.
Tahoe World film review...it recieved 2 stars, beating out Jim Carrey's "23".
Washington Post article --Dolphman69 07:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Dolphman69- Well, then, Welcome to Wikipedia! I suggest you begin reading up on policies and procedures; especially this one involving notability for films, which this film in question, fails to achieve. The sources you mention do not review the film. They only provide basic plot points and distribution details. This is from the guidelines on films: Similar cases of "trivial" publications may include: reviews that are part of a comprehensive review of ALL films in a particular festival, that don't assert anything regarding the notability of individual entries; other forms of comprehensive, non-selective coverage; and some web based reviews by amateur critics who have not established their own notability as critics. This film is not notable and, in my opinion, should be deleted. -- VegitaU 07:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- What about the fact the film is all ready mentioned on Wikipedia here: List of Vietnamese actors If the film is all ready mentioned on Wikipedia in this list, wouldn't it make sense for the film to have it's own wikipage as well? One of the reasons for creating this new film page was to link off this list. Doesn't that make sense to you? Here is another film review I dug up, from an acredited and established newspaper: [56]. And yes, Tahoe World did give it a review, 2 stars, and did not simply cover "basic plot points and distribution details", as you say. Remember, the film has just been released (as of Tuesday), reviews are still coming in. Oh, and a film with Sir Mix A Lot in it is not notable? Check IMDB. He's in it. Not to mention, HIS wikipedia page mentions "Simply FOBulous" too, see for yourself: fr:Sir Mix a Lot - so, let's do the math. Wikipedia all ready mentions Simply FOBulous twice. It would make sense then for it to have its own page in my opinion. I think that makes it "notable", if wikipedia has all ready "noted" it to a fair degree--Dolphman69 08:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)dolphman69
- Reply: "If the film is all ready mentioned on Wikipedia in this list, wouldn't it make sense for the film to have it's own wikipage as well?" Uh, no. And it took me a while to find the thing on the list. Most of the films and actors on there aren't even red linked and the assumption that every mote of information on Wikipedia must be given its own special article is absurd. And no, just because some rap star made an appearance in the movie doesn't make it notable either. Well established actors like Robert Duvall still have movies in their filmographies that remain uncreated in Wikipedia. And I've replied to The Asian Reporter review below. Now, as you say, if the film suddenly gets a slew of national reviews, I'll gladly change my position. -- VegitaU 10:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- What about the fact the film is all ready mentioned on Wikipedia here: List of Vietnamese actors If the film is all ready mentioned on Wikipedia in this list, wouldn't it make sense for the film to have it's own wikipage as well? One of the reasons for creating this new film page was to link off this list. Doesn't that make sense to you? Here is another film review I dug up, from an acredited and established newspaper: [56]. And yes, Tahoe World did give it a review, 2 stars, and did not simply cover "basic plot points and distribution details", as you say. Remember, the film has just been released (as of Tuesday), reviews are still coming in. Oh, and a film with Sir Mix A Lot in it is not notable? Check IMDB. He's in it. Not to mention, HIS wikipedia page mentions "Simply FOBulous" too, see for yourself: fr:Sir Mix a Lot - so, let's do the math. Wikipedia all ready mentions Simply FOBulous twice. It would make sense then for it to have its own page in my opinion. I think that makes it "notable", if wikipedia has all ready "noted" it to a fair degree--Dolphman69 08:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)dolphman69
- Well, then, Welcome to Wikipedia! I suggest you begin reading up on policies and procedures; especially this one involving notability for films, which this film in question, fails to achieve. The sources you mention do not review the film. They only provide basic plot points and distribution details. This is from the guidelines on films: Similar cases of "trivial" publications may include: reviews that are part of a comprehensive review of ALL films in a particular festival, that don't assert anything regarding the notability of individual entries; other forms of comprehensive, non-selective coverage; and some web based reviews by amateur critics who have not established their own notability as critics. This film is not notable and, in my opinion, should be deleted. -- VegitaU 07:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Full-length articles in reliable sources, listed below. cab 09:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Lamborn, Karyn Kubo. "Romantic comedy shows the 'Simply FOBulous' side of mail-order husbands", International Examiner, 2006-02-28. Retrieved on 2007-07-30.
- "Mrs. Mai’s potent import" (2006-02-14). The Asian Reporter 16 (7): 13.
- Reply: From the notability guideline: full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics... Sorry, but I've never heard of The Asian Reporter (some Oregon newspaper) and the International Examiner, despite the fancy name, is another localized, small circulation (10,000) paper from the west coast. This is opposed to critics like Roger Ebert, Richard Roeper, and A.O. Scott published in such papers as The New York Times and the Chicago Sun-Times. So, that's down. historically notable... nope. Has the film received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking? Besides some little-known Asian film awards, none. Was the film selected for preservation in a national archive? Ha, right. Is the film "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program? Hm... I think not. -- VegitaU 09:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Reply to reply above:I noticed VegitaU you did not address my point that Wikipedia all ready mentions "Simply FOBulous" twice, both here fr:Sir Mix a Lot and the List of Vietnamese actors Again, if Simply FOBulous is all ready mentioned on Wikipedia, what will it hurt for it to have it's own wikipage? And, If you think this film is not notable then why are similair films such as this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_City_Dick:_Richard_Peterson%27s_First_Movie on wikipedia? Maybe this has more to do with what YOUR criteria is for notable, rather than what society thinks in general. Oh, and the asian reporter is not just "some oregon" newspaper. These newspapers are read by tens of thousands of Asian-Americans every day. ALSO, Wikipedia has an article on a film THAT IS MADE BY THE SAME DISTRIBUTOR AS SIMPLY FOBULOUS, entitled "Abby Singer". Check it out here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abby_Singer_%28film%29. Why should Simply FOBulous not have a wikipedia page when this film is on Wikipedia? These two films are both part of the Reel Indies film seriess. They were both released by the same company, the same day, partnered together in the same release. As far as preservation in a national archive goes, I believe the Vietnamese Library Association carries the film. "Simply FOBulous" is also the first film EVER about a mail-order HUSBAND. Is that not noticable? Why don't you go to Borders or Circuit City today and buy a copy and see for yourself? I have a feeling VegitaU has turned this into something personal, and I would like to have more third parties weigh in on this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.132.168 (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2007
- Reply: First of all, "anonymous", sign your posts so I don't have to sign them for you. Second of all, stop your sock-puppetry. If you have an account, use it! Third, that Wikipedia mentions something, doesn't make it notable... and for that matter, neither do I and neither do you. We have style guidelines and policies that guide us here on Wikipedia. One of these guidelines is the one for notability on films which I cited above. That states that a film must achieve certain requisites for it to be considered notable enough to put on Wikipedia. I cited all of those above in italics and subsequently proved how the film did not meet any of these. One of these is that nationally known critics like Ebert & Roeper must review the film. Whatever the Asian Reporter is, it's certainly not nationally-known when compared to the New York Times and Washington Post. The name of the paper itself goes to show what a localized populace it serves. And no, before you start implying and whining like you did above, I'm not against Asians. As for the other movies, if they meet the requisits for notability, they may stay, regardless of who produced them. If not, well... you and I will be arguing more films here on Articles for Deletion. Happy editing! -- VegitaU 16:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Reply to above comment: It fails to meet that particular notability guideline, for now. As more reviews come in, that'll change. And, it seems you're more upset with "style" guidelines being met than anything else. Geez. Get over yourself. Look, whether you delete this or not, at some point, as more reviews come in and the film continues to sell througout the world, there WILL be a wikipage eventually created for it. So delete if you want, or save yourself more work in the future.--Dolphman69 17:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Dolphman69
- (unindent)Reply to Dolphman69: Be careful, we do have rules on personal attacks. And yeah, it doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. These aren't my guidelines. If national film critics review the film, then maybe the situation will change. -- VegitaU 18:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- (unindent)Reply to VegitaU: Good to know, because I consider being accused of "whining" a personal attack too. And it may not meet THIS particular guideline, but it meets others. --131.107.0.73 18:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Dolphman69
- Keep This needs to be an all-inclusive encyclopædia, despite your "notability guidelines", this has over 15,000 Goooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooogle hits. --ionas68224|talk|contribs|email 16:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Reply: despite your notability guidelines. I think that pretty much sums up your argument. Oh, and try to follow the Manual of Style when editing. Oh, wait... you don't follow policies. -- VegitaU 16:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Let's all keep it civil, folks, no need to get snappish with one another. Regarding the film, I have to say delete - it seems to have made the rounds at a few festivals but hasn't really made waves enough to be covered in media outlets that would really indicate notability - small local papers don't really fall into that criteria for me. If there are reviews in major daily papers or similar sources, I'd reconsider. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete it now and remake it later, or just keep it up. Sooner or later, as more reviews come in and the film expands into larger territories, it'll meet whatever notability guidelines exist. I guess I just don't see the value in deleting it when it's all ready mentioned twice on Wikipedia and we make a user's experience more rewarding if it had it's own page. It has been in film festivals AND is distributed nationally via straight to DVD home video.--Dolphman69 22:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Dolphman69
- Reply: Oh a straight-to-DVD movie? Even less notable. I doubt Ebert & Roeper are going to do a special on that. There are hundreds of straight-to-DVD films and they all seem to end up in that $3.99 bargain bin at Wal-Mart. -- VegitaU 00:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- ""Reply: Nice VegitaU. Real nice. I have no idea what provoked you to be rude and act so condenscending, but your tone since this discussion began has been despicable. I hope the other editors take notice of this, regardless of their final decision. I hope being an editor here on wikipedia and the "power" it weilds gives you the validation you so desperately need. --Dolphman69 03:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Dolphman69
- Reply: Hey, now.... No personal attacks, remember, Mr. Sock-puppet? And you sign your posts by putting four tildes in a row (~~~~). Happy editing! -- VegitaU 03:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- ""Reply:"" I admit, we're all very impressed with your extensive knowledge of wikipedia terminology.--Dolphman69 04:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)SockPuppet69
- Reply: Hey thanks, man.
I love you too! -- VegitaU 06:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Reply: Hey thanks, man.
- Keep and disregard warring between VegitaU and Dolphman69. Wl219 09:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: WP:JUSTAVOTE isn't a good argument. Is there any reason you feel for keeping this movie in, when put up against notability guidelines or not? -- VegitaU 10:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. No consensus to do anything has been established, although merging can be discussed on the various talk pages since it is an editorial decision. --Coredesat 06:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone
- – (View AfD)
Hopeless WP:OR and listcruft which has no place on Wikipedia. Will (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Also nominated:
- Also nominated:
- I admit when I made these I was very unaquainted with policy, and felt it was okay just to dump all my knowledge into an article. However, not all of it "has no place" on Wikipedia. There's an article by DigitalSpy that discusses changes to the films and reactions from fans to them, which is important. I would say that the changes in casting between films is already visually covered at List of Harry Potter films cast members, and it is trivial to list every single character that appeared in the book and not in the film, but some of the really significant plot changes are obviously notable, and can be referenced to that article, and those are the bits of information which I think should be kept in a very limited merge to the appropriate film article.
Incidentally, can we merge all five AfDs together? I have the same comments for all of them.Never mind, I see that's what this is. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 13:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- This is not original research, this is research from a book and a movie and thus deserves it own article.→041744 13:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please read WP:OR and WP:SYN. Will (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Is a novel position being advanced? I don't see any position being taken. Looks like a collection of verifiable facts to me. RandomCritic 14:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- "Thing X happens in the books while it doesn't in the film, therefore it is a difference." is an obvious "A and B, therefore C" synthesis. Will (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- What position is being advanced in this case? Zakolantern 21:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- "Thing X happens in the books while it doesn't in the film, therefore it is a difference." is an obvious "A and B, therefore C" synthesis. Will (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Please read WP:OR and WP:SYN. Will (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- WP:OR - "The only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." There is no reliable source that directly covers the differences between the book and the film, only the separate sources of the book and the film. These separate sources have been brought together by editors who contribute the results of their analysis, so this article's contents fails verifiability. Even if there was a reliable source that covers the differences, the article should be limited to what that reliable source covers. It is still original research to "pad" the topic with one's own personal observations. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Merge to movie articles. A whole article dedicated to this isn't neccesary. It could just be a small section in the movie article. The Placebo Effect 14:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Merge Nice compromise The Placebo Effect. I agree, would be a great addition to the articles. Shoessss | Chat 14:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Merge I agree with RandomCritic that no position is clearly being advanced by stating as facts the differences between the books and the movies, and while it is true that those differences don't need their own article they should be included in the movies' articles. --Edward Tremel 14:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep I think that these articles are helpful to people who don't care about reading, and will probably be edited to the point where the added text will be deleted completely over time. I agree that it is 'kind of' useless to have these extra articles, but they would have a hard time fitting into the articles and what a waste if they were deleted--Kkrouni 16:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - They are well-written, are definitely not original research, and should be very useful to anyone who has read the books without seeing the movies or vica versa.Zakolantern 19:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Listcruft and original research. Gnfnrf 20:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- I already gave my (brief) opinion above, but I wanted to ask someone to explain what exactly is OR or SYN in these articles. I read them as a series of facts, that does not conclude or suppose anything at all. It is a verifiable fact that a given event was or was not written into a book or movie. As for Synthesis, I don't see the issue. If the articles proposed that because the given items are present in the book and not the movie, the movie is worse, that would be one thing. If it included unverifiable discussion of dialogue between Rowling and the script-writers, that would also be bad. But I don't see the problem here. Zakolantern 21:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and don't merge Since the article is about an intersection of two articles, it should be in its own article space, and not merged with the film or the book, but be easily accessible from both. Listcruft? The article doesn't even have a list, it contains a table. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and don't merge This is a well written article. It's arguable that this is excessive information for Wikipedia, however, it is doing no harm here - and unlike a physical encyclopedia, wikipedia is not constrained by space limits. Although this is somewhat esoteric, that's not really a problem per se; while I'd like to see a more balanced wikipedia (eg improved physics articles), pruning one part of the "tree" won't make another part suddenly grow!--RichardNeill 22:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- "It doesn't do any harm" is not considered a valid argument to keep. The article contains no real-world context that would be suitable for an encyclopedia; it is original research drawn together by the editors themselves without any use of independent significant coverage. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Merge into the film articles. Yonatan talk 23:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep This is pure bullying. This is a fantastic topic for an article and it nicely highlights some crucial points relating to both movie and book. It should not be merged with the movie article, which would suggest that this concept is merely an anomaly. Harry Potter novels are not like any other novels -- they are read and reread in almost cult-like fashion, and the media storm that surrounded each preview and publication date and movie release proves this point. Should it be merged into the movie, it will be lost. These stand by themselves. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 03:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Please assume good faith, DRosenbach. Nobody is "bullying" anybody. --Phirazo 04:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Merge Great work on this but I think this should be merged with the artical specifically discussing the movie. User:Fabboi03Fabboi03 07:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- I don't know if this needs to be pointed out, but the above recommendation is the only contribution by the editor on Wikipedia. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete because these articles are written with original research. The topics fail notability standards because there is no independent, significant coverage from sources other than the editors themselves. Without this coverage, the editors are able to take it upon themselves to report any difference, major or minor, resulting in a compilation of indiscriminate information which has zero encyclopedic bearing. It is very obvious that when one medium is translated into another, many items will change for conventional or creative reasons. What should be reported in an encyclopedic context are explanations why the changes were made, because these differences will have real-world context. These articles have zero real-world context and fail notability standards. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep and don't merge. These are very useful pages that, if merged into their film articles, would have to be shortened and reduced in detail and size in order to fit within the film article appropriately. Thus I think it's good to have a separate article for each of these. I also believe that no matter what happens, the bigger books (i.e. Goblet of Fire, Order of the Phoenix, Deathly Hallows in particular) will more than likely need their own article for this anyways, because much more was cut or altered. Might as well keep them all, then, IMO. --midkay 14:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Saying "It's useful" is not considered a valid argument to keep. Editors personally wrote the content themselves without drawing upon independent significant coverage. The articles are completely subject to the original contributors' whim and has no real-world context, which Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is supposed to contain. This information is fine in a Harry Potter Wikia or a fan site, but the content has no encyclopedic value. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete - Not only is there a bit of original research going on, but it's dangling awfully close to a copyright violation. I just pulled this from the "plot differences section".
Novel
FilmThe Dursleys leave their house at Number 4, Privet Drive to escape the horde of owls delivering letters to Harry. They travel to a place called the Railview Hotel, but are soon bombarded with the same letters. They move to a desolate hut on a rock, far out to sea, when Rubeus Hagrid breaks down the door on July 31, Harry's birthday, and hand-delivers the letter, an acceptance letter to the Hogwarts school. Hagrid takes Harry shopping for his supplies at Diagon Alley, and returns Harry to the Dursleys for about a month before he is to board the Hogwarts Express on September 1.
You can't just copy huge exerts from the book, or a script. I can't verify that they aren't word for word copies, which would be even worse then simply writing it yourself with such details. You need reliably published sources that discuss the differences in the novels and explain why they are important. Anyone can quote a site the lists all the differences. This is merely an indiscriminate collection of copyrighted information. Not only are you not even citing the novel and film (which wouldn't help the situation other than proving that's where you got it), but nothing says why any of this actually matters, except maybe to fans of the books. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)The Dursleys leave their house at Number 4, Privet Drive to escape the horde of owls delivering letters to Harry. They travel to a desolate hut on a rock, far out to sea, when Rubeus Hagrid breaks down the door on July 31, Harry's birthday, and hand-delivers the letter, an acceptance letter to the Hogwarts school. Hagrid takes Harry shopping for his supplies at Diagon Alley. It is assumed they spend the time at The Leaky Cauldron before he is to board the Hogwarts Express on September 1.
- Sorry, I can't quite see how this would be a copyright violation at all. While I'm not saying that the writing of plot details in such intricate detail isn't in violation of other policies like WP:NOT#IINFO, it certainly is not a violation of copyright. The paragraph under the Novel header takes about two chapters in the book, and I can guarantee you on good faith that when I wrote that paragraph it was entirely in my words. The paragraph under the Film header takes approximately seven or eight minutes in the movie, amidst much dialogue. Why would it be a copyright violation for recounting details of a plot? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Bignole is not suggesting that the excessive detail is a copyright violation in the strictest sense of copy-and-paste. However, per WP:FUC #2, 3, and 5, the detail is potentially too excessive, especially per the various arguments that have been presented about the articles failing to have encyclopedic value. In addition, per WP:IINFO #2, the details in the tables can be considered plot summaries as they lack any real-world context or sourced analysis (which does not mean an editor comparing the book and the film). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- You don't have to copy and paste something to be a copyright violation (b/c that would be plain plagarism, since there isn't a source for any of it listed...in this case it would have to be the page you got the information from). But, excessive detail, when you have supplied no justification for fair use (as the book itself is a copyrighted piece of material), you can be subjected to a copy vio lawsuit. A gent was successfully sued for having Seinfeld quotes in a book he wrote, those are one-liners (though he had a lot, which is why he got sued). This page, and the others are entire scenes which are mapped out, detail for detail. You couldn't publish a book that simply laid out detailed scenes from another book, and detailed scenes from a movie and leave it at that. It's not even as simple as one-lined information, there are fully paragraphs of information that do nothing but detail scenes, all the way down to a street name (even when it isn't any different in the film). That's infringing on Rowling's rights, because there's no critical commentary to go along with it to suggest a reason for the comparison. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting. Thanks for the explanation. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- That is not an adequate description of American copyright law; I can't speak to the laws of other countries. In America, to violate copyright you have to reproduce the text or create a work derivative of it (other than parody, commentary, etc.). Merely providing a description of the content of a story is not a violation of copyright. Copyright protects the rights of an author to the text he or she produces, and the right to create new works derived from the original work. It does not protect the ideas, concepts, facts or pseudofacts mentioned in the work. RandomCritic 00:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- As noted above, your have to directly reproduce the text to violate the copyright. Descriptions of copyrighted material do not violate the copyright. Case in point: CliffsNotes. Aexia 22:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- This could be considered an infringement, considering how detailed the replication of the book is, and of the script of the film. It's one thing to say "Harry went here in the book, but in the film he went here", and another to start writing out entire scenes in a book, and entire scenes in a film, with no "original commentary" attached. If someone published a chapter of "the Philosopher's Stone", that would be infringing on the rights the copyright. It isn't the whole book. It's created a derivative. Considering this page is a list of "all differences" in these books, and these huge scene descriptions, you could classify the sum as a derivative work. The fact that so much of the text is reproduced, simple to line up with the film scenes, you could (as I said before, "it is dangling awfully close", not it is violating) get pinched for it. It's harder to explain the encyclopedic purposes of that much detail, when the actual difference in the two versions is only a single sentence worth of information in most cases. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 11:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete per nom, Eric and Bignole. This information has no place in an encylopedia, especially one that is supposed to be free content. Seraphim Whipp 14:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete per Erik and Bignole. I've long felt iffy about this series of articles, but what it comes down to is that these articles are original research by synthesis. It's a great place for nitpicky Harry Potter fans to compare and contrast trivial chunks of passages with the corresponding movie, but it has absolutely no encyclopedic value. I would also argue that it borders on WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOT#INFO violations. María (críticame) 15:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I've already made my recommendation a few entries above, but I believe that another argument for deletion is that these articles violate WP:WAF criteria. "Articles dealing with fictional subjects, characters, objects, events, or locations should discuss their authorship and their significance outside the narrative." This is not done with these articles. Another WP:WAF criteria: "The approach is to describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded. It necessitates the use of both primary and secondary information." (Boldface is not mine.) Primary information includes the plot, which is acceptable here, but there is no usage of secondary sources in this article, which is required in dealing with fictional subjects like the books and films. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment: Unless you use the book as the primary and the movie as the secondary! Shoessss | Chat 15:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- WP:WAF#Secondary information does not include the film as a secondary source; it is just another primary source, since plot information is being drawn upon from the film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Commenter fails to mention the following:
- "Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources. An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions."
- This article makes descriptive claims whose accuracy is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge; it also makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims.RandomCritic 01:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I'll yield to this wording, as I did not notice this. However, the wording states for rare occasions, so why again should this be kept? As it's been said before, the translation from one medium to another will obviously have conventional and creative differences. Such changes are widespread among adaptations and do not seem to be considered "rare occasions" of depending on primary sources. There are other arguments that have been presented as well: WP:WAF denotes writing about fiction should include primary and secondary sources. WP:IINFO denotes that writing plot summaries (multiple summaries of multiple parts of the plot here) requires real-world context behind them as they are otherwise indiscriminate information, and WP:NOTE reflects that these topics would only be permissible with the independent coverage of secondary reliable sources, with zero reliable sources existing in any of these articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Keep, As Harry Potter is one of the most successful series and franchises, the differences between the books and the films have received much coverage in the mainstream media, from film critics and fans. These articles cover a notable topic, in addition to being well-written and well-organized. The articles may need more sources and references, and those can be found and added. I would not consider the current state of these articles to be WP:OR; all the information presented is directly taken from the books and the films. The articles do not analyze any of the differences or draw any of their own conclusions; all the information is factual. It is verifiable and does not promote any particular point of view. These pages are a good resource for Wikipedia readers researching film adaptions or the Harry Potter series. --musicpvm 20:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- The popularity of a topic does not permit one to add their own analysis of two separate sources. This is synthesis, and the lack of independent, secondary sources in all of these articles (except for one, which only cites sources in a small table for the exclusion of characters from a preceding film) fails to grant notability to the entries that the editors have included themselves from their own deduction. With such a system of original research in place, there is no criteria in the form of reliable sources (independent and secondary) to narrow the scope of differences between the books and films to those that can be considered encyclopedic. Here's an excerpt: "The forest in which Harry, Hermione, Neville and Draco serve their detention is called the Forbidden Forest," and "The forest in which Harry, Ron, Hermione and Draco serve their detention is called the Dark Forest." There is zero real-world context or notability in such a context because an editor originally contributed this comparison after deducting on his or her own that including the difference was relevant. It's been argued that it is not original research to present information from two sources for the reader to deduct, but it is original research for the editor to subjectively determine if a difference is appropriate for inclusion, void of any backing by any independent, secondary source. Such differences, such as the difference between the names of the forests, teach readers on Wikipedia nothing of their real-world context or notability. I can contest this difference about forest names because it has zero backing, but if there was a reliable source from the screenwriter who explains why the change was made, that is generally impervious to criticism of lacking real-world context/notability. The differences in writing for the film, in my opinion, should be similar to what can be found at Road to Perdition#Writing, a personal example. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Frivolous criticism. Deciding what is important to talk about and what's not is a characteristic, not of "original research", but of writing. There isn't a single article on Wikipedia where an editor has not exercised some choice in deciding what to mention on a topic and what not. Are all Wikipedia articles original research then? By commenter's criteria, yes. So let's delete the whole thing.RandomCritic 00:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. However, I would like to see the differences linked to sources. For now, it looks a little like WP:OR. Hervegirod 20:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Alot of work went into this and it is all verifiable. I truley don't see the objection to this article!!71.241.249.190 22:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- DeleteIt is acceptable to assume that a novel and its movie adaptation will have differences regarding to the plot. However, these differences are prone to original research and do not need an entry in an encyclopedia. Tomj 23:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Another option: I'm fairly sure I've read something about this on [104] or [105], which are "real" sources, and have passed the point of being just fansites, in my opinion, by virtue of being cited as valid sources in multiple major news outlets, including the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, and being referenced positively on the author's own website. I don't have the time or expertise, but someone might want to try to pull information from them to source the articles. NOTE: to verify this, just search for their names in the NYTimes search engine for example. Zakolantern 00:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I wish they'd had something like this when I had to write a book report in junior high. Mandsford 00:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - The original argument for the deletion is "original research", but everything listed is fact. There is no room for opinion on the page - scenes were either kept, changed, or eliminated from the movies. Supertigerman 02:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- There are multiple arguments for deletion, not just the basis of original research. These articles have been explained to fail WP:IINFO, WP:NOTE, and WP:WAF criteria. The information, without real-world context, are indiscriminate plot details, have no independent, significant reliable sources to determine the notability of the information included, and only primary sources have been used in these articles. The usage of solely primary sources referring to each other to convey information about a topic is original research. The simple fact is that Wikipedia should not contain originally contributed indiscriminate information drawn from primary sources instead of verifiable information from independent, secondary sources that address the information's notability and real-world context. That's the argument in a nutshell. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep These are helpful articles. Using primary sources is not original research. I think this would be cut from a paper encyclopedia, but Wikipedia is NOT a paper encyclopedia. Ursasapien (talk) 07:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Would merge all into a Harry Potter canon article if you want to just keep the major plot and character differences, articles on fictional canons exist for Star Trek and Star Wars. Wl219 09:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment. You haven't actually given any specific reason why these articles should be kept. Seraphim Whipp 10:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Response If people can "delete per nom" then why can't I "keep per other keeps"? Wl219 12:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment Ahh. Ok, that makes more sense then, but it looked like WP:JUSTAVOTE. Your vote would be more insightful if you explained your views/a good reason for keeping the articles because a few of the other keep votes (for which you are basing your vote) have got very little basis for keeeping the article. Seraphim Whipp 12:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well whup-tee-doo, that hasn't stopped those from appearing in AfD. Fine, change my vote to merge to Harry Potter canon. Wl219 14:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment. I'm starting to see a lot of straw men arguments in this AfD, with arguments such as "It's useful, don't delete" and "People put effort into it, don't delete". These types of fallacious arguments don't address the fact that the articles have little or no sources, are collections of indiscriminate information where the writer has used bias/subjective about what to include and there is no critical analysis to justify the use of word-for-word copyrighted material or plagiarised content. Seraphim Whipp 10:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge not every change is notable, being there will always be differences between medium, and what's important is the why behind the fiction. Alientraveller 11:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all they all belong on a fansite and not here. Lugnuts 19:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, per Zakolantern. --Philip Stevens 21:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete as above this is just lots of original research and in many places seems to try and hilight why the changes for the film create plot holes. Again, belongs on a fansite. Tnomad 21:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge and Rewrite: This is not original research, this is merely stating the key differences between the movies and the books. Of course rewriting the articles to shorten it and merging them together would hurt either because it would avoid using too much information for a mere explanation. Just to be clear on things I am the type who would prefer to think on redesigning plans and ONLY use a proposed deletion as a last resort. -Adv193 00:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Besides, after reviewing I would say to just rewrite the articles and remove all side comments to the DVD's and anything that sounds like a simpleton's theory and make into smaller summaries with the least amount of wording possible such as avoiding on explaining it like a book and just explain the plot differences only. -Adv193 00:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge all - Individually, they aren't much, but when you take the lot they are kinda notable. So merge everything REALLY worthwhile into one article. Giggy Talk | Review 04:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep should ofc be keept... They show the differences which are fun to read if you've missed any and shows how sucky the movies are, changing storys and cutting everything out :) ϲнʌɴɗɩєʀ 18:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge/Merge All - I like the suggestion of either merging all these differences articles into one. Otherwise, merge the information back into the article about the film. Aexia 22:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Question - Does the fact that some of these articles exist in other language versions of Wikipedia have any bearing on this, or any, AfD either for or against? (I preseume a deletion in one article does not cascade to another language, but would rather be AfD'd there.) Just wondering. Thanks. --EarthPerson 23:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Different projects are allowed to set their own local rules for inclusion. Other than NPOV and adherence to copyright and free content rules, the Foundation does not set content policies, each local project does, so it's entirely possible that a subject could pass one language's inclusion rules but fail another's. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge the sourced items to the parent article. WP:NOT a fansite. (That might technically not be in there, but it should be.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: The reason why I also want to go for rewrite in addition to a merge to the film articles is because the current format is too much like a plot summary and may as some people state contains speculation. Instead by trimming it down and only state the main facts it will help put down these problems. -Adv193 07:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete no merge Per Wikipedia is not for original research. Whispering 14:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - This is very useful information. I came specifically to this article to refresh my memory of differences between the book and the film. 68.166.88.10 15:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep all per Ursasapien and Zakolantern. Also the articles are really useful and clearly show many differences between the films and the books. - Nick C 15:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and Merge Though not OR, most information in this article is trivial. Anything you can source should be put on the movie's page. There are going to be many minor changes in any book to movie or movie to book translation, as they are different mediums. Unless the director specifically mentions why he made the changes, there is no reason to keep them on Wikipedia. TDS18 18:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge sourced material into the appropriate movie articles. —« ANIMUM » 19:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)- CommentS. I don't like the form of replying to a whole lot of comments with one liners, so I'll put a lot here. First off, in response to a lot of citing of WP:ATA against "keep" arguments, that same policy includes WP:JUSTAPOLICY which would include the comments by User:Hervegirod, User:Whispering and User:Gnfnrf, as well as to a lesser extent User:Lugnuts. That essay cuts both ways. Next, User:Erik cited above WP:WAF as one of his reasons to "Delete". A badly written article does not mean you should delete that article. Finally, while they are insufficiently sourced now, they CAN BE sourced - User:Fbv65edel above linked to the Harry Potter Lexicon, a valid source, where the site gave a similar comparison. Zakolantern 21:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. These lists are informative, can be sourced, aren't too trivial; no compelling reason to delete. They are way too long for merging, and merging is not a substitute for deletion. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 01:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
