674:
kept it on a professional level (it's just that I think any comment should be backed by personal example and experience); and thanks, Diego Moya. The three core content policies with regards to fringe theories are absolutely observed, in this article: “Neutral point of view, No original research and
Verifiability”. With regards to the title, it was originally in English, I changed it into Spanish, but after reading Knowledge (XXG):Naming_conventions_(books)#Title_translations, I guess it should be moved back into English, again??? MLA, could you help me insert a content box and solve some editing mistakes; although I am a professional old school editor in three languages, I am new to Wikepedia’s formating. thank you FC 18:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
573:
make a Point and I believe it to be an unjustifiable attack that I do not believe should be condoned by other editors. My deletion point is not that this article is unverifiable but that it is not notable and the sources do not prove otherwise. The articles listed that I have created (with the exception of the incorrectly linked dab page which is nothing to do with my editing) are notable and if they are badly sourced then that can and should be improved. I suspect an AfD on the Afghan
Ministry of Counter Narcotics would be supported by no other editor so to compare it to a fringe theory protest book with no real maintream coverage and where the author of that book was not deemed notable is highly inappropriate.
220:
Knowledge (XXG) doesn't have a mandatory preestablished number of them) The second one, recommended to put the article into mainspace and the third one was surprised by the editor who established the article (about the author) for deletion. I would find really serious and unfortunate that
Knowledge (XXG)’s recommended editors wouldn’t have the criteria to establish from the beginning that the subject matter was irrelevant.
522:
process recommended by
Knowledge (XXG): heard wikipedia’s backed editors and didn’t move it to mainspace until recommended by one of them. Now, I have to go through this tiring process, in which any editor can say whatever they wish, unveiling, I don't like it issues. while there are articles on mainspace that aren’t even referenced, whatsoever, (with external, third party sources):
341:
the book’s value resides in that it could be setting the basis for the development of new theories that could modify economic science.” I don't state it as clear, not to break the neutrality issue. There are many elements, according to
Knowledge (XXG)'s demands to prove notability. FC 21:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
521:
I ask
Knowledge (XXG) to omit deletion proposal. I find this entire process frustrating and sad. I am a new editor and my article complies with all policies set by Knowledge (XXG); it is perfectly referenced, the notability is documented, with verifiable, excellent sources. It went through the entire
673:
According to
Knowledge (XXG), the only claims to notability are third party reliable sources, not the criteria of the editor himself of what he considers important. MLA: I am sorry that you felt it like a personal attack, it was not my intention, as I didn’t say any personal insult of any sort, just
550:
Hi FC. I'm sorry about the frustration and melancholy, but once an article is challenged in
Articles for Deletion, the debate needs to take place to an ultimate resolution — sometimes which is an agreement to disagree. I will point out that citing this, that, or the other article that is worse isn't
340:
I have included more sources, there are 4 serious periodical and journals' articles and reviews about the book itself plus 2 international electronic interviews) plus several other articles about the author’s work, apart from the book. In addition, the sources either suggest or literally express, “
572:
For the record I did not propose the deletion of this article but I do support it and had I seen the AfD for the book's author I would have supported the outcome of that AfD which was deletion. I do not appreciate having a list of some of the articles I have created brought to this debate just to
567:
Thanks
Carrite! I just wanted to point out that the editor who nominated my article for deletion is the one who wrote the unreferenced articles, so that whoever revises this case, considers it; thanks too to the editors that have suggested constructive changes to my piece FC 12:17, 17 March 2011
219:
Following, I am posting the opinion of
Knowledge (XXG) professional editors, backed by Knowledge (XXG) itself who had positive views about my article and recommended me to move this article into mainspace. The first one approved of the subject matter, but recommended external sources, (which
251:
Evaluating articles with sources in foreign languages is inherently difficult. I see a reception section with a couple of refs from mainstream Mexican media (mainstream media interviews with the author of a radom book are not common in the US, maybe they are in Mexico?). That would indicate
505:
yes my comment is based on Knowledge (XXG)'s policies - the standard for inclusion is not verifiability. Interesting that the author of this fringe theory book was considered insufficiently notable for Knowledge (XXG) and so the article was deleted.
165:
196:
I see no clear evidence that the book is notable. Interviews with the author are normally public relations, not substantial independent source . WorldCat lists it as just published, with no holdings
202:
nor under any form of the title or author I could devise. (I note the heading of the article is incorrect: the book has not been published in English.) See also the following AfD on the Author
159:
99:
94:
103:
86:
318:
126:
498:
Your comment is not based on Knowledge (XXG)’s policies. Please clarify and list, which sources aren’t credible, according to your opinion. FC 00:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
247:
The book appears in the Library of Congress on Line Catalog, since it was an American publishing house the one who published it in Spanish. FC 23:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
452:
The reception section list notable media that has covered it. If it has only been released under its Spanish name, that should be the name of the article though.
180:
90:
147:
650:
629:
256:#1 is satisfied, but who knows? The topic is ostensibly not a national one, but an international one, so we'd expect that if this is more than a
543:
62:
378:
200:
649:
Reliable sources do "address the subject directly in detail" with "more than a trivial mention", which is the definition of notability.
531:
82:
74:
666:
641:
612:
582:
515:
492:
475:
442:
423:
391:
365:
333:
309:
287:
213:
141:
68:
17:
137:
278:--hardly a critical commentary because the book was too new. This stuff often happens when a book/author has fans editing here.)
236:
I think it very well written now, the tone is correct, it is properly styled. You could probably move it to mainspace now. Best,
438:
187:
653:
can be addressed with a move or redirect, no need to delete based on that. Also note that even if it is a fringe theory,
603:
and be satisfied with that; your grievance has already been addressed in your favor with the appropriate response level.
264:
article on this is impossible, but that's often the case with newly published controversial books. (As another example,
199:. Of course that can be deceptive for a non-US book, but The National Library of Mexico catalog does not list it at all
686:
654:
36:
153:
434:
685:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
421:
389:
57:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
297:
552:
266:
592:
197:
361:
596:
662:
608:
260:
theory, the book will be noted by some English sources as well. My main concern right now is that a
637:
414:
382:
173:
52:
49:
348:
275:
257:
283:
253:
560:
523:
329:
305:
226:
you'll need to show that there is significant coverage of the book in third-party publications
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
657:
does NOT disallow having an article about it as long as it's referenced in reliable sources.
261:
453:
357:
600:
271:
658:
604:
599:
and Carrie has explained his incorrect usage of your articles to make a point, so please
410:
633:
406:
578:
527:
511:
488:
279:
209:
556:
325:
301:
120:
242:
Oops! I just declined your CSD. Was there something I missed? Please let me know.
539:
483:
fringe theory with no credible references other than those stating it exists.
535:
351:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
230:
and use book reviews to back the information you provide, not the book itself
625:
574:
507:
484:
232:
Hi. What do you think of my article now? FC 23:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC) —
204:
679:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
433:.- 20 verifiable, reliable, 3rd party sources provide notability
630:
Knowledge (XXG):Naming_conventions_(books)#Title_translations
116:
112:
108:
172:
356:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
186:
551:regarded as a valid way to defend this one — see
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
689:). No further edits should be made to this page.
319:list of Literature-related deletion discussions
238:Alpha Quadrant talk 23:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
8:
317:Note: This debate has been included in the
296:This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing
316:
244:--Kudpung (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC
405:- Article has significant coverage in
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
544:Afghan Ministry of Counter Narcotics
377:This article has been nominated for
532:Farnham Knights (American football)
83:Price Theory: Economics is Mistaken
75:Price Theory: Economics is Mistaken
409:and meets criteria 1 and 2 of the
24:
48:. Enough sources for notability.
546:. FC 19:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
274:in a form that was basically an
1:
407:reliable third party sources
706:
667:12:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
642:23:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
628:and others, also violates
613:12:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
583:21:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
516:06:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
493:22:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
476:19:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
443:17:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
424:14:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
392:14:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
366:00:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
228:<+CharlieEchoTango: -->
223:<+CharlieEchoTango: -->
69:01:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
334:00:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
310:13:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
288:08:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
214:19:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
682:Please do not modify it.
597:Knowledge (XXG):NEWCOMER
32:Please do not modify it.
563:) 03:49, 17 March 2011
267:Anatomy of an Epidemic
411:notability guidelines
300:). It is listed now.
270:was even put up for
593:User:Fabian Colinas
655:WP:Fringe_theories
651:Title translations
44:The result was
624:Not notable, per
524:Habibullah Qaderi
394:
368:
336:
322:
697:
684:
472:
469:
466:
463:
460:
457:
419:
387:
373:
355:
353:
323:
191:
190:
176:
124:
106:
65:
60:
55:
34:
705:
704:
700:
699:
698:
696:
695:
694:
693:
687:deletion review
680:
470:
467:
464:
461:
458:
455:
415:
383:
346:
133:
97:
81:
78:
63:
58:
53:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
703:
701:
692:
691:
672:
670:
669:
644:
618:
617:
616:
615:
586:
585:
565:
564:
519:
518:
496:
495:
478:
446:
445:
427:
426:
417:Alpha Quadrant
398:
396:
395:
385:Alpha Quadrant
370:
369:
354:
343:
338:
337:
314:
313:
312:
291:
290:
218:
194:
193:
130:
77:
72:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
702:
690:
688:
683:
677:
676:
675:
668:
664:
660:
656:
652:
648:
645:
643:
639:
635:
631:
627:
623:
620:
619:
614:
610:
606:
602:
598:
594:
590:
589:
588:
587:
584:
580:
576:
571:
570:
569:
562:
558:
554:
553:WP:OTHERSTUFF
549:
548:
547:
545:
541:
537:
533:
529:
528:Katze im Sack
525:
517:
513:
509:
504:
501:
500:
499:
494:
490:
486:
482:
479:
477:
474:
473:
451:
448:
447:
444:
440:
436:
432:
429:
428:
425:
422:
420:
418:
412:
408:
404:
401:
400:
399:
393:
390:
388:
386:
380:
376:
372:
371:
367:
363:
359:
352:
350:
345:
344:
342:
335:
331:
327:
320:
315:
311:
307:
303:
299:
295:
294:
293:
292:
289:
285:
281:
277:
273:
269:
268:
263:
259:
255:
250:
249:
248:
245:
243:
239:
237:
233:
231:
227:
224:iNeedHelp00,
221:
216:
215:
211:
207:
206:
201:
198:
189:
185:
182:
179:
175:
171:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
139:
136:
135:Find sources:
131:
128:
122:
118:
114:
110:
105:
101:
96:
92:
88:
84:
80:
79:
76:
73:
71:
70:
66:
61:
56:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
681:
678:
671:
646:
621:
566:
520:
502:
497:
480:
454:
449:
435:Smithsonian
430:
416:
402:
397:
384:
374:
347:
339:
265:
246:
241:
240:
235:
234:
229:
225:
222:
217:
203:
195:
183:
177:
169:
162:
156:
150:
144:
134:
45:
43:
31:
28:
540:Simon Smith
413:for books.
358:Ron Ritzman
160:free images
659:Diego Moya
605:Diego Moya
591:Note that
536:Scott Fava
634:DThomsen8
326:• Gene93k
276:WP:ADVERT
258:WP:FRINGE
349:Relisted
280:Tijfo098
254:WP:NBOOK
127:View log
557:Carrite
503:Comment
302:DumbBOT
262:WP:NPOV
166:WPÂ refs
154:scholar
100:protect
95:history
50:King of
622:Delete
601:WP:AGF
568:(UTC)
481:Delete
379:rescue
298:step 3
272:WP:DYK
138:Google
104:delete
595:is a
471:Focus
375:Note:
210:talk
181:JSTOR
142:books
121:views
113:watch
109:links
16:<
663:talk
647:Keep
638:talk
609:talk
579:talk
561:talk
512:talk
489:talk
450:Keep
439:talk
431:Keep
403:Keep
362:talk
330:talk
306:talk
284:talk
174:FENS
148:news
117:logs
91:talk
87:edit
46:keep
632:.--
626:MLA
575:MLA
508:MLA
485:MLA
324:--
205:DGG
188:TWL
125:– (
665:)
640:)
611:)
581:)
555:.
542:,
538:,
534:,
526:,
514:)
491:)
441:)
381:.
364:)
332:)
321:.
308:)
286:)
212:)
168:)
119:|
115:|
111:|
107:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
67:â™
661:(
636:(
607:(
577:(
559:(
530:,
510:(
487:(
468:m
465:a
462:e
459:r
456:D
437:(
360:(
328:(
304:(
282:(
208:(
192:)
184:·
178:·
170:·
163:·
157:·
151:·
145:·
140:(
132:(
129:)
123:)
85:(
64:♣
59:♦
54:♥
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.