The result was Closed. Wrong process. The nominator also has this article up for proposed deletion now. If the proposed deletion is challenged, this article can be taken to Articles for deletion at that time. Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability
Creating deletion discussion page for Mary Goodrich
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable portmanteua. The term has already been transwikied. There is no need for this article. Computerjoe's talk 22:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this rivalry is notable, it's not apparent from the article, which is poorly written and based on unreliable sources. If these clubs have articles of their own, I recommend against merging any of this there. Contested PROD. Sandstein 22:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable album, since the artist who mashed-up the songs is not notable either. Dunno if the reference seems to add up any notability Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 22:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Not quite notable enough. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played a game in a fully pro league. Was originally prodded, but removed without explanation by the article's creator. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played a game in a fully pro league. Was originally prodded, but removed without explanation by an IP. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn by nominator. --Angelo (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played a game in a fully pro league. Was originally prodded, but removed without explanation by an IP. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete CSD A7 bio. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played a game in a fully pro league. Was originally prodded, but removed without explanation by an IP. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a previous AfD for this person at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titus James. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played a game in a fully pro league. Was originally prodded, but removed without explanation by the article's creator. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"16 East Broad Street is a building in Columbus. It was once the tallest building in the city for many years." Well, we say many years, the infobox says six. Noth that there are any sources or anything. A directory entry, then, but one without sources. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per added sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The 25th tallest building in Denver. No indication of why being the 25th tallest building in a randomly chosen town is in any way important. Sources are the usual two directories, and this is a directory entry. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (and surprised). Article needs to be gutted and stubbed. Marking it for cleanup. Keeper ǀ 76 20:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An article with no non-trivial independent sources on a band whose members are all redlinked, which fails to explain the importance or significance of the subject, reads as personal opinion or essay. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per added sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A 13-floor building. No explanation of why it is important or interesting, sources are directory entries and so is this article. WP:NOT a directory. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was deleted from article space after having been moved to Template:10,000 or more runs in Test and ODI cricket. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what this is, a misplaced template, perhaps? Guy (Help!) 21:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable corporate officer. What Google results there are tend towards the Wikipedia mirrors and directories. No current Google News hits. Archives only list a wedding report from a local paper. No evidence of any signifiant coverage of any sort. Article has been listed as orphaned for nearly 2 years, and tagged for notability since September. DarkAudit (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy close Wrong forum. This is a plausible enough typo that it shouldn't even go to WP:RFD, even if nothing links to the redirect in question. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 21:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with typo in the surname (it is Di Luca, non Di Lucca). No links in Moloch981 (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable in-joke, only appeared in a handful of early issues of Mad. No sources to back it up, just some in-universe info relevant only to very obsessed fans of Mad. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 21:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (WP:CRYSTAL) and it fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for songs. The album featuring this song (Graffiti) has also been nominated for deletion. ~Theleftorium (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable autobiography. Has been speedily deleted once. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No significant coverage of the individual is available. Subject fails notability. Has an assertion of notability. ~ Eóin (talk) 02:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn. I'm still not convinced that this is encyclopedic info, but the consensus is stacked against me. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 22:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of Mad's TV shows spoofs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) These are indiscriminate, unsourced lists of every movie and TV that Mad has ever parodied. While I'm a semi-fan of the magazine, I think that such lists violate WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO. Furthermore, these would be hard to source, save for using the individual magazines as sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 20:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page is a POV-fork that tries to expand the the definition of sexual orientation to include 'Non Heterosexual-homosexual continuum sexual orientations'. it was established as part of an attempt to create original research on Template:sexual orientation Ludwigs2 20:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this production manager and assistant director satisfying WP:BIO. I only found one Ghit before I gave up. Also, his IMDb entry is...umm...a tad thin. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge into Quantum computer. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant how to content. Perhaps suitable for Wikiversity or Wikihow. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Ros0709 (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A difficult one, this - so I am bringing it to AfD for consideration. Article started simply as a link to a page "Bill Russell for Congress" which may give a clue to the editor's primary intention. I tagged it as spam and the article creator removed the tag. Since then he's added (and is adding) details of a decorated US Army officer so notability may be established. However, the link to the campaign page remains and if you look at the editor's talk page you will be led to a similar, former, campaign page [here] for this very editor, where one of the tenets of the campaign was strengthening the armed forces. So I believe there is a huge COI here and that WP is being used as a soapbox. WP:POLITICIAN does not attribute notability to unelected candidates. Ros0709 (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to Cars (film). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about some location in the Cars movie and has no chance to assert notability. It fails WP:FICT and should not be on this site. ZeroGiga (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable economist/professor. Fails all criteria of WP:BIO. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Deleted under WP:CSD#G7 per User:TenPoundHammer - a good faith atempt by the author to request deletion of the article. No need for an AFD. Pedro : Chat 20:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
J.C. (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article has no chance to assert notability, and is a game guide. Game Guides are not needed for this site. ZeroGiga (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a strategy Wiki site on the Internet; we could divide it and put it on there. Website's called StrategyWiki. Link 486 (talk) 03:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails noability tests. --Seascic T/C 18:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability tests. It also doesn't help that he himself is writing his own article. --Seascic T/C 18:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indiscriminate and looooooooooooong page listing what was parodied in every single issue of Mad. One of the sources is a blog, and a couple sources appear to be fan sites (e.g. the Mad cover site). I do not feel that such a directory could ever be useful. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 18:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence that this meets WP:WEB. The only non-internal reference is a hit analysis website, which is just like the Google or Alexa test, which is not an indicator of notability. hbdragon88 (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And many other reasons why this is notable, I see absolutely no reason to delete this. SF007 (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was "and on the 7th day the Lord sayeth No consensus and went for a nice lie down." (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been on wikipedia for nearly three years and does not have a single WP:RS. Seems to have marginal importance writing three fringe books from Christian "Science" publishers 30 years ago. Delete as non-notable. We66er (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Ōtsu incident. Obviously isn't getting deleted, and most everyone seems to want to merge or redirect it, but to be honest, most of the article is already covered at Ōtsu incident. Any snippets of info I missed in the article are, of course, still in history, so have at it. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only notable for one thing. There is more information on him in the article on that one thing: Otsu incident than in his article. - Steve Dufour (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why are we even having this discussion? At the very least, this seems like a poster child for WP:BEFORE: Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD. My !vote is Keep, and if it is turned into a redirect, so be it. Neier (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark (talk) 08:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable made-for-TV movie (made-for-TV movies aren't inherently notable, are they?) Best source I could find was this, but that's only one source, so I'd say this fails the general notability criterion. On top of that, the page is a big rambling plot summary. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 17:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete Beeblbrox (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check the history on this one. Article was a copy-and-paste of another article, and the creator is just inserting new names in the key places. Zero G-hits, non-notable, and a bad faith article all around. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 04:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article was tagged for deletion as blatant advertising, but I didn't find it that blatant to speedily delete it. The company in question doesn't meet the notability guideline, and reads a bit like an ad. Maxim(talk) 17:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. While no, they're not neatly organized, there's enough sources here now to keep the article provided it gets a little work done on it, which seems to be underway. Needing cleanup isn't a reason to delete. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Local U.S. middle school. Article cites no sources (other than the school website) and does not identify any attribute of the school that is out of the ordinary. Main contributor has been given ample opportunity to correct the situation. Orlady (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable government committee, although i'm not sure under what rules this would come. Ironholds 14:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination closed per nominator's request. Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable government committee. The creator keeps exclaiming we should keep it because the info is in the public domain, which would be fine if it was a copyvio issue but is hardly relevant. Ironholds 14:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. The only clear argument in wikipedia terms to emerge from this debate is that there are not sufficient third party sources to establish notability. Should they be found, then the other issues may need to be addressed. Ty 04:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's been flagged up via OTRS that this article may well be a hoax - certainly in terms of how close the relationship between Andy and Pietro was. A quick Google reveals little more than copies of the press release used as a reference, and that remains the only reference on the article since May (that discusses the close relationship; the other reference only has a fleeting mention of Pietro). I'm not convinced this is good enough sourcing, so since no sources are forthcoming, I'm nominating it for deletion. It's also worth noting that without this claimed close relationship, the artist is not likely to be notable. —Sean Whitton / 14:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI am the original author of this Pietro Psaier article. I started the thread on wikipedia as I own several prints and paintings by the artist. While there maybe some debate over the link between Warhol and Psaier there is no doubt that Pietro Psaier was an artist, I bought his work from a reputable auction house in the UK and I have receipts to prove it, amongst which I have seen his work appear again and again in galleries and auction houses across London and the UK. Some of Psaier's work I've seen pays a close resemblance to that of Warhols but most I'd say is totally unique pop-art that is totally unattributed to Warhol and goes to show Psaier needs to be recognised in his own right as a pop-artist.Gooders 23:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulgoo (talk • contribs)
Comment I've added references to a Spainish book called 'The Factory' on Andy Warhol and Pietro Psaier. And references to recent pieces sold at auction by Christies and Bonhams including a colloborative piece by both Andy Warhol and Pietro Psaier. I hope this puts an end to these hoax myths.--Gooders 00:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulgoo (talk • contribs)
Comment It has been recommended I don't particpate unless I have "something significant to contribute." I do. I have posted new findings at http://www.warholstars.org/pietropsaier.html. Also none of the references sited by the original author prove the allegations he has made in the article. The reference to the Spanish booklet is just a catalogue listing - no text. The auction items have not been authenticated by the Andy Warhol Authentication Board and are therefore not collaborations. What is the artist's date of birth and why are there no friends or family or anyone else who knew him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.8.29 (talk) 09:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the artist Pietro Psaier painted the work and Andy Warhol signed the work why would the Andy Warhol Authentication Board need to authenticate its a Psaier not necessary a Warhol. Second, why would Christies with their reputation sell such an expensive piece if it hadn't properly authenticated. To the other questions, what is Banksy's date of birth, friends, family? Yet he is allowed to be recognized as an artist on Wikipedia, so sorry I don't see the relevance. --Gooders 10:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment Sorry if my comment comes out in bold again. I'm new to all this. First, why on earth would Andy Warhol sign something that somebody else painted? Second, I'm a great fan of Banksy's work. But he does have people who know him. They just don't identify his real name. His dealer, Steve Lazarides who has an excellent gallery and roster of artists, knows him very well. He just won't give out his real name. If you want to start a Pisaier page that doesn't link him to Warhol then go ahead. My concern is that online sources like Wiki are being used to try to increase the value of Pasaier's alleged work by linking him to Warhol. This is not fair to the guy on the street who doesn't know a lot about Warhol's life who then buys a work thinking that it has some link to Warhol. I've not been able to access the Christies site ever since you put that link up so can't comment on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.8.29 (talk) 11:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok moving forward with this Wiki, and taking the following as facts we can establish that Pietro Psaier is not a hoax and was actually a pop artist. He has sold work through all the major auction houses Sotherbys, Christies, Bonhams (I have links for all). Christies sold a collaborative screenprint in 2005 by both Pietro Psaier and Andy Warhol (link is working) where as this piece may or may not have authenticated by the Warhol board, the fact is Christies did sell it, so there must be some truth to the connection between the two artists. I am happy for the wiki to just stick to these facts and would be happy to re-write it if agreed.--Gooders 11:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulgoo (talk • contribs)
Comment I have just read through the warholstars blog and I am not happy about claims referred to this wiki, for one it just gives one person’s unbiased viewpoint and gives no-one the opportunity to react to it and secondly because it includes the names of innocent people like myself of incrementing acts simply for contributing to a wiki?? Yes I have a background in art and design, hence why I am commenting on an Artist's wiki. Paul is a fairly common first name in the UK and I am most definitely not the other Paul mentioned, it clearly denotes from the entries to this wiki my contributions and I most definitely did not write the full biog of the artist on this wiki or any other site. And if the author of the warholstars blog is reading this if he could kindly remove the false claims and references of my name from his blog in the first instance. --Gooders 12:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulgoo (talk • contribs)
Comment Paul, no problem. I've replaced your name with initials. But you could have just emailed me from the site. I assumed you had read the article before you made the previous comments. I've replaced your history with a revision history of the article. I'm not trying to offend anyone I just want to get to the bottom of things. I still can't access the Christies page though. The Bonhams page isn't of interest to me because it doesn't relate to Warhol. What I am objecting to is the allegation that this artist was part of Warhol's Factory and collaborated with him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.8.29 (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you can access the Christie's site do a serach 'Andy Warhol Pietro Psaier' make sure you have the 'past lots' dropdown selected, two pieces should come up. Previous comments refer to whether or not the artist was licensed to use the Factory name, the Bonham's piece refers to a 'signed & stamped' label 'Factory Additions New York', further proof in my mind that the artist was involved with the Factory. Thanks for removing my name from your blog. --Gooders 14:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)--
Comment Gooders - Thanks. But can't access Christies now. Must be busy. Regarding Bonhams, possibly someone signed his name to an already existing print or it was an unauthorized copy. Factory Additions was set up to do Warhol prints. They didn't do prints by anyone else. As I mentioned before the Authentication Board didn't authenticate it. I wonder who is behind all this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.8.29 (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update - a four-page update has been posted on the warholstars site here. JohnCD (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think the warholstars blog should be referred to as it doesn't cite any facts and is mainly made up of the author's guess work. I think its really important to start to organise this wiki with actual facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.188.2 (talk) 09:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you go to the ABOUT section of warholstars.org you will see the list of publications in which it has been cited as a source. It is not a blog site. If you go to the SOURCES section you will see my own sources. Everything on the site is referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.8.29 (talk) 10:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is what Kenneth Goldsmith said about warholstars.org in the book "I'll Be Your MIrror: The Selected Andy Warhol Interviews" (NY:Caroll & Graf Publ. 2004): "Although I've never met him, I must acknowledge Gary Comenas, creator of warholstars.org, a site I visited daily during my research. Gary's site could be the very best resource on Andy Warhol there is - either in print or on the Web." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.8.29 (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update I need to clarify "Factory Additions" in regard to the Bonham piece cited as a reference. The source of information is "Andy Warhol Prints: A Catalogue Raisonne 1962-1987 (Edition Schellmann in assn. with Ronald Feldman Fine Arts, Inc and The Andy Warhol Foundation for Visual Arts, Inc., rev. ed. 1997). Factory Additions was a company that was established by Andy Warhol in 1966 in order to produce prints. (p. 21) It produced prints from 1966 - 1974. (p. 278) Therefore, any works by any other artist using the label "Factory Additions" had nothing to do with Warhol after 1974. Any certificates bearing the words "Factory Additions" dated after 1974 had nothing to do with Warhol's company Factory Additions. The Bonhams piece is dated 1982.
Also, previously it was alleged that Psaier had something to do with Warhol's printer Rupert Jasen Smith. Until 1974, Warhol worked with commercial printers such as Aetna Silkscreen Products, Inc. and Salvatore Silkscreen Co. Inc. (p. 278) Alexander Heinrici was Warhol's primary printer from 1974 to 1976. (p. 278) In 1977 Rupert Jasen Smith became Warhol's printer until Warhol's death in 1987. (p. 278) Therefore, Smith had nothing to do with Warhol's Factory Additions and nothing to do with the 1960s Factory output. UpThere (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting question - what is the earliest-dated reference to Psaier that anyone can find? With the single exception of the 1997 reference in the Independent, everything cited, and anything I can find, seems to be 2005 or later. JohnCD (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another auction reference!! but 1994 on Christies website Bob Dylan Print --Gooders 17:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulgoo (talk • contribs)
Comment The auctioneers press release previously used as a reference has already been discounted because the auctioneer was selling his art and had a vested interest. The same is true of any auctioneer selling his work. I have never read a biography of anyone which used an auction site as a reference to prove the existence of that person. There has never been a mention of Psaier in any reputable art journal such as Art Review, Art Forum, Art News or the Art Newspaper. He has never been mentioned in any art histories or biographies. I suspect that the reason a few people are trying so hard to get him into Wikipedia is because they own something by him and want it to increase in value. A so-called Psaier would be worth a lot more if there was a Warhol link. It has been shown that there isn't. Wikipedia is about knowledge and should not be used for financial gain. 77.103.8.29 (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well suprisingly I disagree auction houses like Christies and Sotherbys have very strict criteria and employ the very best art specialists in the business, making mistakes with Warhols is not an option. I personally love Psaier's work for what it is, great pop-art which is why should Psaier should be listed on Wikipedia, regardless of the Warhol link. --Gooders 22:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulgoo (talk • contribs)
Comment: I would add once more that the information needed to clarify everything will be forthcoming. In the meantime I would ask that people refer back to the original warholstars article in which the author slandered and maligned those he mentioned in the article with no evidence at that point in time. He even went on to state that Psaier never existed. He has also used Wiki as a platform to hype his own product, his website, the same as he is accusing others of doing. To slander and malign people on a public platform - both on his own website and Wiki - without having gathered evidence at that point to back up those accusations is giving this author the attention and publicity he so obviously craves.
Conspiracy theories are a part of modern history unfortunately and we now have auctioneers, galleries, the general public, state departments, newspapers et al involved in yet another one according to the author ....
Is wiki doing anything about its site being used as a public platform to publicise warholstars? He constantly places his sites name in his posts. This is no different to what he has accused the owners and sellers of Psaier's works of doing in order to increase the value of the Psaier works they own. As the original complainant to Wiki accusing people of being involved in a hoax and inaccuracies, Wiki had advised him not to take part in this discussion unless he had a significant contributions to make. The history of his posts indicate the contrary, they are not all of a significant contribution. The links between Wiki and his site are also evidence of this.
In answer to the question: What is the earliest dated reference? The evidence we have of Psaiers artworks goes back as far as the 1950's.
I will not make any further comment regarding this matter until such time as we have a completed package.
I am only making this statement now at a sense of outrage that wiki has been used as a platform for slander. This is a very serious matter and I would hope that those in control of Wiki would be able to do something to prevent this ever happening again in the future to anyone else.
Jacqueline Chapman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.186.177 (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' Chapman above has a vested interest in this. I have mentioned her in my article at http://www.warholstars.org/pietropsaier.html. She has slandered me at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pietro_Psaier. Last night someone using a false name from a hotmail address emailed me with some 'documents' relating to a Studio Psaier. They don't prove the existence of Psaier. They are clearance forms for works of art. I have never said that works of art bearing this person's name do not exist. There are works of art out there signed 'Psaier." But anyone could be producing them and signing them. Whoever is doing it could still be alive. As I have mentioned above Factory Additions stopped trading after 1974. There is no record of an address or history for anything called 'Studio Psaier.' The forms were done in order to release the works of art for travel, etc... In regard to the dating of the works, we do not know if the dating is true. Anyone can attribute a date to a work. A true date can only be established through modern dating analysis (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_forgery). These works have never been through that process. For all we know, this hoax could be similar to the "Nat Tate" hoax where David Bowie created an artist and fooled the art world. "Nat Tate" never existed and I strongly doubt that someone named Pietro Psaier did. Let's stick to the facts here and not throw insults back and forth. As I mentioned in my article, the producer of the the film that Chapman is working on has already admitted to me by email that my points are valid. Gary Comenas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.8.29 (talk) 03:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Deleted per WP:CSD#G7 [37] Pedro : Chat 20:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable singer, fails WP:MUSIC. Despite the article's assertions of numerous TV appearances, there is no IMDB entry for either "Timothy W. Hodge" or "Timothy Hodge." No reliable sources crop up, and the only hits pertaining to this artist (there's a modestly known R&B singer by the same name, if a good bit older) are his own website, this article, various Wiki mirrors and a couple self-posting music sites. Fails WP:V. RGTraynor 14:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Im a relabile sources for the above pages that are up for deletions, if u need more information just ask me, or do ur research
--Sunpop (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)sunpop--Sunpop (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn- having seen the other AfD (which wasn't linked on the talk page for some reason) I am going to make an attempt at rewriting it myself.
This article is based entirely upon original research, with people writing what they have found in the game, or possibly based on game-guides/blogs, none of which are cited. No reliable sources are cited, and I doubt many could be found, and even if they could, I think it would be better to just start the article from scratch- this currently reads like something between a game-guide and a plot summary. J Milburn (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this article for deletion because it is about a film that was planned back in 2006, and there has been nothing produced in that time. Apparently, the most recent citation is IGN in January 2007, indicating the project as "in development". IMDb's entry does not show that it is filming, so the article does not yet warrant existence per the notability guidelines for future films. Useful information can be placed at Oddworld#Citizen Siege, and article can be recreated if filming ever begins, which is not a guarantee in the film industry. Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. BJTalk 18:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The self-described "debut single" of a non-notable musician who himself fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC, no release date confirmed. Fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V. Ravenswing 13:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Chick Bowen 02:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only finding a single mention in a local paper. Awards mentioned are nominations only. Not seeing enough here to meet WP:N Rtphokie (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not finding sufficient references in 3rd party sources. Subject lacks notability. Merge to slashdot? Delete? or can someone find enough references to demonstrate significant coverage? Rtphokie (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7. Frank | talk 13:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An unnotable internet celebrity, not providing any sources to justify its notability. StaticGull Talk 12:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per G3. —Animum (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly certain these are hoaxes, some have been tagged for speedy as such by User:Ironholds, but I'd like to swing them by here first. Marasmusine (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, website, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Taking to AfD as a technicality. Virtually no content and no assertion of notability qualifies the article for speedy deletion as db-nocontext or db-web. However, the speedy tag applied was removed by an editor on a vandalising spree four minutes before they were indefinitely blocked. Speedy Delete. Note - the author did place a hangon tag and request time to finish the article but that was some hours ago now. The actual content there "MovieKids.org is a reliable website about Kids in Movies. PS It's really reliable as a source and never wrong." suggests the article is a joke. Ros0709 (talk) 11:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Lack of coverage to verify notability. --PeaceNT (talk) 06:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actress. I would say this is self-promotion but there is a four year difference between the date of birth here and on IMDb. Is she notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. There's no call for accusations of discrimination--all articles must have independent references and an assertion of notability. Chick Bowen 02:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about a sprite art cartoon. Googling "7th Moon" yields so many unrelated hits it's futile trying to wade through them all, but it's telling that the website for this thing has had a grand total of 291 hits since 2004, and one of those was me just now. Reyk YO! 10:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Independent, significant coverage doesn't seem to be there. Chick Bowen 02:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Motivational speaker, etc. Promotional article written by his agent. Is he notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark (talk) 08:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to have been created with good intention but is problematic in that the references which it contains take you straight to commerical sites with forms to provide quotes and take orders. Thus, deliberately or not, the article is spam. The author claims these are the best references to be found, which suggests a distinct lack of notability. There's discussion on the talk page. This subject, pruned somewhat, would seem to make a sensible new section to the car article. Ros0709 (talk) 09:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Bad faith nomination by sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked user .
thr article has no merit. The person in question is nobody famous, seems like a vanity article. So many other articles that do belong here, and this one surely doesn't. Waste of time and space. LonChaney (talk) 08:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Truly, that isn't a good enough reason for the article to stand. Anybody who lists an article about anything, cares about it, so your rational makes no sense. LonChaney (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N. Google search shows 23 ghits [38], but no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Scholar shows only one paper on this [39], but that is not multiple and not significant coverage. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Article can be recreated if sufficient sources are found. Ty 00:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A photographer who verifiably exists and who verifiably took a rather good photo that appears on a well known pop LP. OK so far, but nothing else is asserted in the article, and some googling turns out bare assertions that he has worked for this, that and the other corporate client, as well as lots of bloggery and the like, but no more that I can find. I wouldn't be surprised if Weddle deserved an article, but there's not yet enough to go on. -- Hoary (talk) 08:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a list of one college sports team's results in a particular season. It should be deleted because Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed., nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information. Reyk YO! 08:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable university president of a private university. Fails WP:BIO as he has not "been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." A few "news" items from local papers and the university websites, but those do not meet the requirements for being "intellectually independent." Additionally, he has not "received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them" and he has not "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record" in his field. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. DGG is quite right, though--obviously some merging is needed but that can be discussed elsewhere. Chick Bowen 02:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, as of July 26 08, the article is garbage: a bunch of unverified impressions about how someone perceives this term is usually used, complete with "quotes" that don't quote anyone and embarrassingly unverifiable junk like: "Good ol' boys are generally thought to..." and "the term thus has generally a positive connotation..." On the other hand, there is a list of cultural references, most if not all of which are verifiable. Does that make it worth keeping, on the hope the facts can be augmented and that the garbage around the facts might be replaced with some actual content? 89.176.31.200 (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Article is in need of a rewrite. Chick Bowen 02:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable and none asserted. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus; content clearly rejected, though perhaps the topic is not. I will redirect all campuses to the main article without a merge, since as noted below there is no significant content not already included. In my capacity as an editor I will stubbify the main article. Chick Bowen 03:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
also nominating
No significant coverage in secondary sources, Wikipedia is not a directory, written like an advertisement. Khatru2 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 23:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC. No sources at all to confirm any claims to notability. Google searches are hard with a name like Drastic. (Search for drastic rapper and strange things come up) Delete Undeath (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First the good: nicely presented article. Perhaps that's why it survived nomination for speedy deletion (CSD#A7 - non-notable web content). The problem is, it's for an online game which is still only in beta and there are absolutely no sources that assert notability. Does not meet WP:WEB. Ros0709 (talk) 06:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. The consensus that this topic does not make sense as an encyclopedia article is clear--the notability of the topic per se, under this name, was never established. Clearly there is some text worth moving to the main article, however. All text is retained in the article history and can be merged in as needed. If that is done, please note the merge in edit summaries to maintain history continuity. Chick Bowen 03:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article seems like a personal essay and is unintelligible to someone who is not abreast with the topic. It may be possible to add any intelligible content into Wilfred Bion if appropriate. Mvjs (talk) 05:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possible hoax, not yet notable per WP:CRYSTAL Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC standards. Non notable label and google hits only show few band links, while the other links are about the disease. Delete Undeath (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn. Note that I don't consider high schools inherently notable, but if this truly is the only Waldorf school in the U.S. that makes it notable (it would help if I could, you know, find a source that says so.) Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 06:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable school. Only news hits are for events held at the school. tagged for primary since December 07. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 04:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 04:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources found for any of his accomplishments — the indie CDs he released, the song he wrote for River Road, or the books he wrote. Only link is his official website. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 03:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The sources listed by Esn would work as minor references but cannot be considered reliable, independent sources that can establish the notability of the company (or its founders). Chick Bowen 03:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Claims to notablity are backed up by only a trivial source, and I can't find any other secondary sources to verify said awards. Declined speedy. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 02:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy redirect to Thriller. Didn't even need an afd. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 02:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE: Wasn't released as a single, hasn't appeared on any notable chart, it isn't even a song that Jackson plays live very often if at all. It should be redirected to Thriller (album) to stop fan boys continuing this. — Realist2 (Speak) 02:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
unremarkable person. I can't find anything particularly notable about the books, no mention of exactly what he "taught" at his various institutes and the fact that the "new software for text-to-voice technology" based on his work is being developed by a company with his name in the title implies a vanity project and means it's impossible to judge exactly how worthwhile said software is. Ironholds 01:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
AfD Withdrawn: further edits and other users contributions show that he is indeed notable. My apologies to y'all for wasting your time. Ironholds 03:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I'm not impressed by the canvassing that seems to have occurred, nor am I impressed by the arguments of the many anonymous keep !votes. The bottom line is that significant reliable secondary coverage is absent, and that means Wikipedia does not consider it notable. Okiefromokla questions? 01:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This website does not meet WP:WEB and lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. While there is a list of "references", do not be deceived as none of them are actually about the website at all, and instead focus on a news story about rapper Rick Ross and his previous two year stint as a corrections officer. JBsupreme (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it, son. Why does it need to show up on Google for it to be a real website? Besides, they just don't give news, they also help underground artists with websites and MySpace pages, so maybe you idiots should revise the wikipedia page. And I laugh at those who say it doesn't have notability. Yeah, They haven't been sued EVER for slander, but the website lacks notability. Get ya facts straight before you decide to be morons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.148.161 (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Keep It Trill", the website, only has one entry on Google. There are many other references to this phrase, but none refer to this site. Hence, I'm sticking to my guns for a "delete" nomination. By the way -- sign all your comments with four tildes. Also, if all these unsigned comments come from one person, keep in mind that such is frowned upon here at Wikipedia. -- azumanga (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-MAYBE, if this has to be deleted.. instead have keepitTrill, just as allhiphop has theirs. ~Thanks for readin...70.118.127.3 (talk) 04:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.127.3 (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication that this is a notable game. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 01:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been speedied twice, although both have been declined due to uncertainty. In fact, it is only reasonable this "private island" doesn't get much media attention, if at all. A few has already doubted its existence, and I propose for it's deletion. Dengero (talk) 01:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete - author-blanked. ... discospinster talk 01:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A not yet released album by a NN band, and also per WP:crystal. Twinzor (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A google search produces a single result - a trivial mention in a reliable source. Consequently, delete because of notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alansun Reply to above On site -That is not a pamplet but the 31 page registered/copyright Hindi book Brhmaand Pujan.which is offered 'free' for world welfare or knowledge hungry readers.The intention is to share knowledge to the seeker absoletly 'free of cost'.. Could some one of you help in translating them and refer here what exactly this educational book meant?--Dralansun (talk) 10:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alan Sun Reply to above Yes I agree the article is poorly written and lack sense of grammar or might appear as some lay writer's work. but the content/material/intention/purpose stay crucial and may be accepted wikipedia/arbitrory judges as they are far matured/judgemental entity and not aspiring/under trained editors.Regards. --Dralansun (talk) 10:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Outside comment
Alan Sun reply to aboveArbitrory of wikipedia will be more interested to know which news paper had said what in their news or reviews coverage? Reputation or validity of the newspapers is secondary all indians know about them that they are authentic and most popualr newspapers but here the content of news/reviews[references/notability] are more important than praising how popular the news papers are. Yes they are reputed reliable newspapers and they dont entertain false hoax news/reviews. Regards --Dralansun (talk) 10:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(UTC)
Alan Sun reply to above Dear Chirag I regret for your lack of knowledge. But then too I respect you . However pls note: prayers / rituals could never be registered by any Government . Neither such 'legal section' exist in the world. However acquainting you again Brhmand Pujan is a book published in 1999 and it is registered under Copyrights law of India. Pls properly re-read the notice on that offered website . It's an ISBN No. issued by the Government of India and not aspiring / under trial- training editors of some private firm or voluntary organisation. Moreover Brhmand Pujan is registered under School/College Educational Department of the Government of India . Any Governing Educational dept. never register any vague philosophy unless it is meaningful or useful for educating students or mass in whole. Religions has no place there. Within few days original certificate may also be posted on the news site which show a government stamp. I had made this request to the publisher.
And what I feel Chirag from your quotes above you had hurriedly, hastily gone on that news website and read the name of the newspapers so you are praising or acknowledging reputed newspapers who had covered news on Naresh Sonee or Brhmand pujan book but you are ignoring the content published by these reputed newspapers for Brhmaand Pujan or Naresh Sonee. There was a press conference even on Naresh Sonee. Had you noticed that some newspapers had also criticized the matter? I request you or everybody whomsoever wish to join this controversial debate to prior summit here the whole content of news Hindi to English what actually the news & reviews said along with dates & facts. This will be a generous contribution from you or all who are helping or opposing this controversial page on Brhmoism to get deleted or grow. However, running or flying away by throwing some dirt or pebbles on the page, author or me is not a responsible job of educated editors in wiki indeed . With regards- --Dralansun (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request Wikipedia-Arbitrary intervention urgently in this matter For instance…..My case an stakes of Brhmoism , Esa Masi , Esa seeks Wikipedia-Arbitrary intervention urgently. For instance….. Mythology , Superstitions , Blind Faith , Fictions , Philosophy , Religions , Spiritualism , Consciousness are awkward or illogical claims to get Registered/Notifications/ References . Yet wikipedia has such topics otherwise which wikipedia / encyclopedia media caretakers paparazzi has noticed Buddha getting enlighten under Banyan tree , however Krishna orating Gita discourses to Arjun during crucial hours of busy bleeding war , or Jesus doing miracles or issuing commandments. In those days there were no internet , media or paparazzi to register, record claims references or sources and yet their claims are recorded in wiki. Naresh Sonee's Brhmoism is not a superstitious, blind faith institute or any religion. It's a self thesis of philosophy, a novel way offered to realize 'Universal God or it's spiritualism.
Needless to argue more - Various news papers had either reported or recorded the factual existence of such matters through news and reviews. Claiming and recording are two different aspects and so cannot be measured or weight with equal parmeters. Even internet search throw many pages and hits on Naresh Sonee and Brhmaand Pujan existance or notability What else this debate needs? Just fight like school boys only to prove the existence of such ‘genuine voice’ wrong? Should not such crab fight end in wikipedia to claim me wrong and concentrate to read the complete article and then realize what is the ‘ intention or purpose’ of Brhmoismand why it should not be ignored by wikipedia.
I agree and apologise that my tone or flair of language or interpretations may be worng in the 'questioned'article. but can't all be improved by gentle generous editors to wiki? Should only professionally managed trust who profit or are previlaged to promote, propogate themselves with money or otherwise under the flags of some religion be posted on wikipedia either. Here are some lively prove- Asaram Bapu , Murari Bapu , Deepak Chopra and many more. I leave this matter to the expert senses of Wikipedia-Arbitrator. Arbitrator should read my appeal of discussion below and read the 'intention or purpose'of articles and decide why this notable page should not be in wikipedia? Regards --Dralansun (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
gives many hits in 0.03 seconds which Hon’ble Administer should selfly check pls. Below are examples of google hits-
Reference-Notability-Verification can the Administrator get from below mentioned sites. They are in formet pix of many HINDI NEWS PAPERS coverage on Brhmand Pujan .
So if you still feel doubtful , translations of these news-reviews or content of the book should be sought or confirmed by Wiki Indian Project Community or WikiProject Hindu philosophy who are expert in Hindi-English Language or such subjects. Usually roaming editors of Wikipedia are interested in particular subjects so do not help.
Debate on Notability should not challenge common sense . For instance: Many ‘Tribal’ community or their regions or religions are yet not explored /mentioned/covered/registered by search engines so that does not means such matter or mind do not exist or wastes. Same way many Tribal religions or community has or do not have written literatures due to lack of approach or awareness but Geography / History channel or encyclopedia explore and cover them because such wise class are knowledge hungry to seek and spread information and knowledge.
Same way- Literature/News/Reviews of Brhmaand Pujan or Brhmoism cannot be denied from above given site. They are enough to prove notability/verification/references/acknowledgements. For instance Christians in India are commonly and generally 90% called 'Esai'. To Jesus Indian calls 'Esa' and such words do not exist on internet or English world .
Carefully note: Only 10 to 20 % literate class in India are familiar with Jesus or Christians and they too prefer names to be called 'Esa' to Jesus & 'Esai' to Christians. But does that means or proves that ‘Esa' Jesus or ‘Esai’ Christians never exists & will never meet standards of today’s internet or wikipedia or encyclopedia? Wiki Editors should judge the subject or issue from it’s very existence or notability-references and not through the popularity of a ‘subject, matter or community’ existing on ‘internet search hits’ mere. How one can get stamped from the Government / associations/ missions in such cases of notability? For instance on internet- no body knew what 'body piercing' was 12 years ago ? All started from tribals – or say came to fashion again with someone’s efforts to change the fashion to past . But can you erase 'Body Piercing from wiki now ?
So today with due respect to Wiki & the objectors here of Brhmoism – Pls. allow me to start a new page on Esa or Esa Masi the Jesus of/from India and Esai the Christians of/from India . And then, let Christians of the world challenge and acknowledge my stake that this two words lacks it's authenticity, references-notability-verifications etc.
Today Esai , Esa Masi words you may not find on internet search hit. But Jesus and Christianity in India are popular by such two names mainly.
Till then good wise minds should allow my pages to stay & are requested never to delete my matter of Brhmoism , Isa Masi or Esai unless verified or judged from the judgmental angles of Hon'ble Administrators/Arbitrary sections who are concerned members of WIKIPEDIA. Deleters or objectors should empathy the pain one put into creating an article. I beg the critics to completely read the intention or purpose of the article in question and then follow their impulse and also help me out in improving Brhmoism, Esai Esa masi format.
I suggest the Administrator should also clear the Esa search diricting to my raised page Esa Masi the Indian Jesus. No body should be allowed to scrap such Universal pages of wiki interests. People like me may lack language or grammar approach but my ‘contents’ matters significant to world.
And pls. mind well Brhmaand Pujan or Naresh Sonee has a good hit than Esa Masi or Esai on any so called search engine. Followers of Esa Masi are millions Esai in India but they lack authenticity on search engine. The same claim is of Brhmoism today. For instance ; Esa , Esai , Esa Masi does not have a single hit on search engine but these names has multimillions followers in India.
To prove my claims right, for instance on date July 27, 2008-
Jesus who is called Esa in India by this name has not even gives a single hit on google
Christians who are called Esai in India by this name has not a single hit on google
Jesus who is called Esa Masi in India by this name has not a single hit on google :
Regards/--Dralansun (talk) 12:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alan Sun reply to above Schism, I understand your emotionally hurt and your feeling toward your own religion so you had strongly opposed above. Going through your Ism schism I have noticed you are a strong believer of Vaishnu Dharma Vaishnavism and its member too which is a staunch private religion in India and alike other religion too you too strongly believe in superstitions, blind faith. And so how could you or any other religion could so easily entertain or surrender to such page Brhmoism who want to spread non-bias community and unite the world in ‘One Religion’ . Brhmoism is not a professionally religious expert people . We have no missionary or religion. It’s a slow and self progressive people of like minds. We only wish to ‘unite every religion of the world sharing love, brotherhood so You too should join us without leaving your religion. We have full respect for every religion. So will you mind translating the Hindi paper first what it say about Brhmaand Pujan and then come to any conlusion. In the news there Rajisthan Patrika & Dainik Bhaskkara renowned Vaishnuvi Pandit Saint Vallab of Rajastahan had already praised the book in an temple inauguration in Rajasthanwhere the Saint/Priest was called . Both news paper had covered in their news 5 years back. Have courtesy and broad mind Schism, The world and wiki is for all- May Brahman give you sense and empathy others situation also. Soon we will be posting one college principal letter and Vaishnuvi Sanasta Guru letter on the news-review sights . read it what it say? It's a is very awkaward & humilating situation here as the fighit or this battle is being fought with all of you at one side. It reminds me of great people like Arjun , Krishna , Jesus , Buddha , Mohemed who all were one man army first and the world recognised their deeds only after their death.God bless u all who oppose too -Regards --Dralansun (talk) 09:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
THIS CASE NEED ALL NON-RELIGIOUS EDITORS OR WIKI ARBITRATORS HERE WHO ARE WISDOM FULL
OR LOOK TO EVERY RELIGION WITH EQUAL LOVING & RESPECTING EYES HOWEVER,
STAUNCH LOVERS OF THEIR RELIGION WILL NEVER DIGEST THAT THEIR LONG TIDIOUS HARD WORK DONE ON WIKIPEDIA OF THEIR PRIVATE MYTHOLOGICAL RELIGIONS GET CHALLANGED OR DISTURBED BY BRHMOISM . THIS IS THE REASON MY ARTICLE SAY-BRHMOISM IS FORBBIDDEN AS/BY RELIGION. ON THIS DELETION PAGE TOO IT'S NOTHING ELSE BUT BRHMO-PHOBIO SPREADING LIKE VIRUS IN WIKIPEDIA. ARBITRATOR MUST PLS. CHECK MY CLAIM AS MAXIMUM OF THE CRITICIZER ON THIS DELETION PAGE HAS WRITTEN/CONTRIBUTED MANY ARTICLES ON THEIR PERSONAL MYTHO RELIGION SUBJECTS. NOW I LEAVE ON WIKIPEDIA HEAD TO DECIDE IF I AM HURTING MANY SENTIMENTS OF THEIR EDITORS OR ADMINISTRATORS HERE. BELEIVE ME I RESPECT EVERY RELIGION. JAI BRHMAAND- I HONOUR ALL OF YOU AND THE 'GOD UNIVERSE'- THE BRHMAAND.MY APPEAL TO YOU ALL IS 'LET WE ALL RELIGION UNITE & LOVE/RESPECT EACH OTHER'. WHAT WRONG BRHMOISM PHILOSOPHY SUGGEST ?
Regards --Dralansun (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]