Jump to content

User talk:Black Falcon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Domer48 (talk | contribs) at 18:23, 12 June 2007 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irish Famine (book) (2nd nomination)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Human Rights in Islam (book)

Hello. Just letting you know, I reverted your Redirection of Human Rights in Islam (book). What you did was actually delete the page. The page was up for discussion for merging, but you didn't merge, you deleted and then redirected the user to Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi. Please see: Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Thank you. Fanra 01:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I received your reply. I was unaware of the difference between what you did and Deletion. Although the history of the page remains, it looked like deletion to me. Reading the page on merge, I see, "If there is no information to be added to the destination page, you can simply redirect the other page there, but please make this clear in the edit summary." Which is what you did. It was my fault for not knowing this. In the future, you might wish to say something in the discussion of the merge that you have gone ahead and merged and didn't put in the information. I assumed the discussion on the merge was still open.

While you can feel free to do whatever you feel is best for Wikipedia (within the rules, which you were), I thought I would mention to you something I discovered that you might not have seen. Once I read this, I became much less strict on my requirements that articles here be necessary ones. Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance Once I read that, I stopped worrying about performance or storage space for Wikipedia.  :)

Thank you for your help in teaching me about merges. Fanra 03:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Utopia

It was not my intention to offend anyone. It is hard to see people you know personally and have labored hard with to accomplish something so extraordinary as building a new nation from the sea floor up being slandered by people who will not even take the time to make a phone call or check references. You might notice that most of the information is very old that is being sited in the article. You might also notice that the New Utopia project is still going strong and have not been removed or had any complaints filed against them or had any further issue with the government in the last 8 years.

The site has been up all this time and the effort has been ongoing. Lazarus is from a different time. At 75 years old he was simply not aware of the tightening of the rules by the SEC and did not intend to do anyone harm. He simply wanted to build his country on an area that I have seen for myself and it is perfect for building on. No one has a stronger claim than Lazarus on the area of the territorial claim than he does.

Since his first attempt to obtain the financing for this project failed in 2000 after the SEC problem thousands of man hours have been invested in the project. A survey was conducted by the Principality on the area costing over $27,000 and hundreds of volunteer hours of post processing to obtain detailed maps of the region. [1]

A development plan was prepared by Noel Berge the new Minister of State Development Plan 5MB PDF Mr. Berge formerly worked for the World Bank on projects for the PC computerization of several emerging nations in Africa. He has invested countless hours of work since this initial plan was put together.

Shay Lotan the London Barrister who is also New Utopia's Chief Justice not only put together a very convincing legal opinion letter which is available upon request but not for internet publication he has also interested the same corporation that financed the [Palms Island] project to build a hotel in NU.

Most of this can be discussed in the public until the project is further along.

When you see the work and personal funds that a lot of hard working honest people have put into this project you get very passionate about the project.

"please assume good faith" as was stated in my remarks on the discussion page good faith can not be clearly established. The entire article is slanted to the negative this bias quite obvious. If it is not deliberately injurious but still slanted and negative how is that objective? I must just be missing something. The edits seem purposely injuriously to the subjects of this article.

You have stated that you edited the page to mirror the SEC citation but if you read my further statement on the discussion page you will see that your edit is not in line with the truth of the matter. It is a mistaken conclusion that there is any scam involved nor ant fraudulent enterprise as you have stated in the article.

My reasoning is very clear in the discussion page and I would like you to address it as it is undeniable logic based and the legal opinion. I studies for the bar quite some years ago but I still have a very good understanding of law. When you read the example citation of the SEC ruling against the Banc of America when they violate the same rule stated in the enjoining statement against Lazarus you will see the difference in language.

I might also add that the far more serious statement against BAC when they clearly violated the same security rule did not indicate that were a fraudulent enterprise.

Trivia templates

Hi, yes no problem, will include it over the next couple of days, once SB has caught up with its backlog. Rich Farmbrough, 13:53 1 June 2007 (GMT).

My RFA

You supported my candidacy in my recently completed request for adminship. The debated ended 40/4/1 and I'm now an administrator. I'd just like to say thanks for taking the time to consider me, and thanks for the confidence in me. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified.

Regards, WilyD

RfC

Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 09:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:GK

Are you sure you want to remove even the subpages with essays that have some usefulcontent on them? Not an issue, just checking. DGG 21:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hello Black Falcon,

Thankyou for voting in my RfA. You will be pleased to know that it has been successful!! Meaning that I, Reedy Boy, am now an English Wikipedia Administrator.

It passed with a suprising 47/0/0, and I really am grateful of all your support, and I hope that I live up to your high expectations!

If there is anything I can do to help you out, please, do not hesitate to contact me!

Yours,
Reedy Boy 16:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cathay Camera Club

I see you have proposed the Cathay Camera Club article for deletion on the grounds of lack of notability. I would have thought that being the leading English-speaking photographic society in Hong Kong for the past 25 years was notable; you apparently don't. How big or long-established would the club have to be to achieve notability in your eyes? There are other entries on photographic societies that you have not marked, e.g. Toronto Camera Club, Bangladesh Photographic Society, The Camera Club of New York, and RA Photo Club - what makes them more notable? Rodparkes 08:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YechielMan's RFA

Thank you for participating in either of my unsuccessful requests for adminship. Although the experience was frustrating, it showed me some mistakes I was making, and I hope to learn from those mistakes.

Please take a few minutes to read User:YechielMan/Other stuff/RFA review and advise me how to proceed. Best regards. YechielMan 21:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent arguments...

Hi! I'm still thinking about what you have said. I do think there might still be hope for light-weight reviews, but I'm not sure. Well, first, by using a more modest term than "stable" to the public, like "lacking blatant vandalism" but not so negative, and second, perhaps some simple process would be in order, at least for the very first review, e.g. requiring at least three independent reviews, and so on. In any case, what I really wanted to say (and that's why I'm posting here and not on the talk page) is that I found your argumentation extremely lucid and convincing. I will need to think about this whole thing before I comment again. Really, after many people opposing without fully explaining themselves, your comments were highly refreshing. I hope you will continue to discuss that proposal, and that I will meet you on some article in the future ;) Best wishes, Merzul 22:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy tag WP:UR

I've removed the speedy tag from WP:UR because the redirect was valid, and I didn't understand why the request for deletion was being made. Cheers. --MZMcBride 10:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Unusual requests was deleted on May 30. I tagged the redirect as a candidate for deletion under CSD R1 on May 31 and it was deleted the same day. An admin restored both the target page and the redirect on June 5, but apparently forgot to remove my speedy tag. See target log redirect log. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 16:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Albeit mildly pre-emptive. Have fun! --Steve (Stephen) talk 03:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

I meant what I said at your RFA - I consider you to be the best kind of Wikipedian. I'm relieved to see that the community agrees.--Kubigula (talk) 03:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're an Admin!

It is my pleasure to inform you that you are now an admin. Congratulations. You can feel free to do everything you're supposed to do and nothing you're not supposed to do. If you haven't already, now is the time look through the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Best wishes and good luck, -- Cecropia 03:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oray!
Congratulations! I'm sure you'll do a great job. Do get in touch if you ever have any questions you think I might be able to help with. WjBscribe 05:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats. Enjoy the moment for 20 seconds and then get your ass on the job! Pascal.Tesson 05:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that's a big backlog but deletion is oh so quick and easy. Tip for the beginner: when deleting pages that are tagged with db, don't click on the delete tab. You get a much nicer automatic deletion summary by finding the sentence "This will alert administrators (.......) and any revisions of CSD before deletion." in the pink box and hitting the keyword deletion. Pascal.Tesson 06:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yay!! Let's wheel war sometime! ··coelacan 06:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC) And I won't deny a hint of cynicism, so I'll just hope that it's both.[reply]

Oh, if you're not familiar with the term, see wikipedia:wheel war. I will make the first move, by speedy deleting Ramtha as an insalvageable BLP violation. You should then give me a three hour cool down block with a block summary of "Happy Birthday, Susan!" ··coelacan 07:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pfft. If I knew you were going to be spamming thank messages for a 100% RfA, I might have abstained! –Pomte 06:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's not so bad. Some people like the notes. I was too lazy to spam for mine, but I considered it. In the end I opted for the path of least resistance. ··coelacan 06:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Woo, congrats! You'll do a great job, methinks G1ggy! Review me! 07:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congrads mate, do us proud. Cheers! Dfrg.msc 07:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sincerest best wishes in this role. Pedro |  Chat  07:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratuations, you'll make a fine admin - and yes, licking hot women is part of the job, you better get used to it fast! Ryan Postlethwaite 10:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, congratulations! As Ryan says, licking hot women is indeed part of the job, but there are fun bits too, you'll see. Take care mate :) Riana ⁂ 10:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations. Peacent 13:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations. I meant it when I said that I've always enjoyed your contributions here. Don't leave that behind with your new responsibilities. Smmurphy(Talk) 13:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:
  1. Remember you will always protect the wrong version.
  2. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
  3. Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
  4. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
  5. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology.
  6. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.
KillerChihuahua?!?
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

RfA

You don't need to thank me; you deserve the tools and you need them to be more efficient on Wikipedia. You had overwhelming support, and I wish you good luck! Sr13 07:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your RfA

BF, congratulations on your well supported RfA. I was pretty tied up the last week and didn't notice your nomination, or you would have had my support, not that you needed it. Good luck! --Kevin Murray 14:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Congratulations on your successful nomination. I have no doubts that your sysopping will be a boon to the project :)

As for my less than successful run, thank you for your words of support. It is heartening to know that people see and respect one's contributions. While it's disappointing that people are willing to oppose someone based only on a userbox while having no substantial gripes with their contributions, I respect that everyone is entitled to an opinion and a voice. I may give it another shot in a while, and hopefully they'd be more keen to judge based on my work between now and then. Again, thanks for the comment and good luck with the admin duties! Arkyan • (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conga Rats on your successful RFA! --Ozgod 03:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mr RfA...

Congratulations, and thanks for you kind words. Good luck with your new responsibilities. Cheers! hmwith[?] 15:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome for my support! :) Acalamari 16:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, and you're very welcome! --Merovingian (T, C, E) 20:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats Man

Congrats on your RfA and your welcome, when I reviewed your edits I was very impressed. Æon Insanity Now! 04:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

... for your AfD comment about John Hochman, acknowledging the work I put into expanding the article with reputable sourced citations. That was very nice of you and unexpected, thanks. Yours, Smee 05:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

User:Valusa

Hi Black Falcon! This is the user Valusa (check out my user page). I have a question. What is the request for adminship? From:Valusa--Valusa 05:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Image:Tangeline.jpg)

You can delete it, the article it was used for got deleted--Migospia†♥ 07:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Someone found a use--Migospia†♥ 18:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tangeline mistake

Tangeline has been redirected to Evangeline Williamson. that is so insulting and wrong, no one I saw nor did I say to redirect there, I thought we all agreed to delete, redirect and merge into One Life to Live, then delete the other 26+ soap couple, why close the discussion and then change the agreement all on your on?--Migospia†♥ 18:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How the hell do I do that?--Migospia†♥ 19:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC) nvm and whenever the others put up for deletion let me know, Cheers--Migospia†♥ 19:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Hi Black Falcon! The request for adminship sounds cool! Im going to have to wait some time for it. But I hope to get nominated someday! From:--Valusa 07:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome

I have not seen this much unanimous endorsement in the last one year. That speaks volumes about you as a person. Keep up the good work.Taprobanus 14:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

 Hello, Black Falcon, and thank you so much for your support in my recent RFA, which passed 59/0/0! I will try very hard to live up to your expectations – please let me know if I can help you in any way, but first take your cookie! Thanks again! KrakatoaKatie 00:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I'm not very creative, so I adopted this from RyanGerbil10 who swiped it from Misza13, from whom I have swiped many, many things. Chocolate chip cookies sold separately. Batteries not included. Offer not valid with other coupons or promotions. May contain peanuts, strawberries, or eggs. Keep out of the reach of small children, may present a choking hazard to children under the age of 3 and an electrical hazard to small farm animals. Do not take with alcohol or grapefruit juice. This notice has a blue background and may disappear into thin air. The recipient of this message, hereafter referred to as "Barnum's latest sucker", relinquishes all rights and abilities to file a lawsuit, to jump on a pogostick while standing on his head, and to leap out in front of moving trains. KrakatoaKatie, Jimbo Wales, and the states of Arkansas, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma are not liable for any lost or stolen items or damage from errant shopping carts or unlicensed drivers such as Paris Hilton.

Septarian nodule

==Septarian nodule== Hi! I created an about Septarian nodules. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septarian_nodule Would you mind looking at it and editing it? thanks! Neptunekh 01:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recursion

This Stokke deletion loop is amusing and I keep trying to point things out however I'm afraid of doing anything really WP:BOLD because I hope one day to become an admin and I have a feeling being bold on an article that has, ironically, become the wikipedia controversy of the month over whether being the newspapers controversy of the month is notable would make me unelectable. If Tony doesn't change his stance what shall happen? –– Lid(Talk) 18:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather confident he will undo his closure ... in my experience, Tony is reasonable; he just has an intense dislike for process when it comes to biographies of living persons. If he adamantly refuses to undo his closure, there are three options: (1) start a new DRV discussion, which someone else may immediately close as "disruptive"; (2) start a request for comment against him, which I think is the least desirable outcome; (3) simply revert him. If he flat-out refuses to undo his closure ... I'm leaning toward the first or the third (in general I don't like admins reverting each other, but I think this was sufficiently out-of-process to justify that). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So Tony is an admin? I wasn't sure and his logs weren't helpful (hasn't done anything admin related since October) and also thought he had them removed for some reason. I posted as such on his talk page. –– Lid(Talk) 18:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What the ... you're right! He resigned adminship in October 2006 (see Wikipedia:Former administrators). Still, I'd like to wait a little longer to see if he'll undo the closure on his own. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!

Congrats on your admin promotion, if I had seen your RFA i whould had supported it. Anyway, hope to see ya around! Flubeca (t) 14:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA :)

Thank you, Black Falcon, for commenting on my RfA, which closed successfully with a tally of 76/0/1! I hope I will meet your expectations, and be sure I will continue trying to be a good editor as well as a good administrator :) If I may be of any assistance to you in the future (or if you see me commit some grievous error :), please drop me a line on my Talk page.

Again, thank you, and happy editing! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huge waste of time

Well, that was a huge waste of everyones time.

  1. By closing Hungarophobia, or whatever as "Delete", and Serbophobia as "No delete", you guarantee that someone else will create Hungarophobia again.
  2. Yes, the Serbophobia article improved, I improved it. But now it is entirely trivial, and I expect by one week it will be filled with WP:OR again.
  3. This exact same AfD troupe will probably come up again in 2 months time.

I'm not blaming you, I just wish someone with more experience of these issues had closed the AfD. - Francis Tyers · 06:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blah, sorry about that, I'm just a bit frustrated is all. Disregard me :/ - Francis Tyers · 07:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. No problem, I can understand and appreciate that you posted a follow-up to your initial comment. I realise that by closing them differently, I left open the possibility of a deletion review charging that I did not evaluate them equally ... but, that's the point: I evaluated each discussion separately and closed it on that basis. As I noted in the Serbophobia AfD, there is no consensus that all "anti-X sentiment" articles are inherently invalid, so the AfD outcome for one article cannot directly extend over others. The fact that they were nominated separately, have different strengths and weaknesses, and received separated deletion debates also precludes any attempt to treat them all the same.
As regards your three points:
  1. If someone recreates "anti-Hungarian sentiment", it can always be renominated for deletion if the article is again an original synthesis of various facts/incidents.
  2. The Serbophobia article may be refilled with original research, but proneness to OR, POV, or vandalism are generally considered weak reasons to delete an article unless there is consensus that a valid article can't be written with what is there.
  3. I don't see a problem with renominating the articles in the future, though I'd advise to do either a bulk nomination – if the nomination rationale is the same for all articles and you want all articles to be considered together – or to tailor each nomination to its respective article.
Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irish Famine (book) (2nd nomination)

Hello Black Falcon, keeping in line with the policy for WP:DRV, I would very much like if you could, take a second look at the Article I nominated for AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irish Famine (book) (2nd nomination) . As this is my second nomination for this article, and having acted on the advice of the previous closing administrator,[2] , the final course of action open to me would appear to be WP:DRV. If you would, could you possibly outline the rational used in arriving at your determination. As outlined in the previous discussion, I felt I made every effort this time to offer a “good strong refutation”, of the arguments, and although the discussion did not generate the level I interest I had hoped for, (having been listed on both the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ireland and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature ) I did not feel that this would have a negative affect, in fact quite the opposite. I look forward to hearing from you, thanking you in advance, Kind Regards, --Domer48 19:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'd be happy to provide my reasoning.
The basis of your nomination was that the book, in your view, was not notable. User:A1octopus agreed with you but used a standard of notability that, though certainly valid, is significantly stricter than the current wording at WP:BK: "internationally famous, on several best-seller lists, and/or a spark of major controversy in notable publications". User:Vintagekits also agreed, stating that "[t]he book itself is not notable". Though Vintagekits did not provide additional explanation, I presume s(he) mean that the book does not meet any of the criteria specified at WP:BK.
User:Paxse responded by (1) providing links to multiple reviews and (2) stating that the "book also meets the minimum threshold standards for WP:BK as it has an ISBN number and is cataloged by the National Library of Ireland". The latter is, of course, the bare minimum that that a book must satisfy to even be considered for inclusion, so I did not give it much weight. However, the presence of reviews does allow a case to be made that the book meets Criterion 1 of WP:BK, as was argued by User:Paxse and User:Kernel Saunters.
You challenged the ability of the reviews to establish notability on the basis that they were not reliable/were from commercial sites or provided only trivial coverage of the book. Regarding the former: WP:BK does not reject the use of sources from commercial sites as long as they are reliable and independent of the authors/publishers. What the notability guideline states, specifically, is that being listed "at online bookstores such as BarnesAndNoble.com or Amazon.com is not by itself an indication of notability". Regarding the latter: the triviality of coverage is something that can be debated and I feel that in this instance there was sufficient disagreement about it to prevent the reaching of a consensus to delete the article. As you noted, one of the defining features of Criterion 1 of WP:BK is that there must be "sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary". However, you were unable to convince Paxse and Kernel Saunters that such information was not present. Indeed, the existence of the "Critical response" section suggests that the article already has grown beyond "a simple plot summary".
I will echo Herostratus' comment that the role of the closer is not so much to evaluate the article itself, but to determine whether there exists a policy-informed consensus to delete the article. That does not seem to me to be the case here. I would be happy to provide any further clarifications. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 20:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Hungarian sentiment

It is very interesting, only the anti-hungarian sentiment article has been deleted, although most of the voters (8 of them), who said to delete the article (14 delete votes) agreed to the deletion only, if the other articles go too.Baxter9 20:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As AfD debates are discussions rather than votes, the exact tally was not what determined my closure. In addition, three of the six AfDs in the series have not yet been closed and one or more of them may still be deleted. Finally, specifying "delete all" or "delete, along with others" is not the same as stating "delete, but only if the others are deleted". If you would like, I can provide a detailed explanation of my closing rationale. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 20:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I meant by voting for "delete all": "delete, but only if the others are deleted". --KIDB 07:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KIDB, since I cannot guess intent, I closed based on what was written. Unless somehow amended or supplemented, a "delete all" recommendation does not in itself suggest support for conditional action. If you think that the other "delete all" comments were also meant to be conditional and are unsatisfied with the result, you may want to consider taking this to deletion review to gather broader community input. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. That article was not so bad, it had many references. Why are the other anti-x articles are better?? They can stay??Baxter9 07:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Baxter9, as the closer, my role was only to evaluate the arguments presented in the AfD and to ascertain whether there was consensus for a particular action. My closure does not directly reflect on the quality of the articles except as it reflects the evaluations of participants in the deletion discussion. Finally, having references does not preclude an article from constituting an original synthesis. For instance, it is a fact that Eva Longoria and Veselin Topalov were born on the same day, but to state that their births are in any way connected (except that they happened to be on the same day) constitutes original "research". If you think an article can be written that addresses the concerns raised in the AfD (primarily WP:OR and WP:NPOV), you may certainly recreate the article. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irish Famine (book) (2nd nomination)

Thank you very much for your considered reply. If I may make some points in relation to your rational, I would be much obliged. On your point about A1octopus, I would agree that it is a much stricter criteria, but I would also consider it to be of a much more encyclopaedic standard. In relation to Vintagekits contribution your right, during the first AfD they were much more detailed as seen here [3]. On the more substantive issue, I at not time questioned the reliability of sources as you suggest, but rather questioned there applicability under the criteria outlined and the "nonsubstantive detail treatment".[4] I addressed each one of the sources in turn, and at no time were the issues I raised addressed. In particular, as outlined in the criteria, these sources did not satisfy it at all. The “subject” [5] was reviewed in a “trivial”, [6] way and this point was quite frankly ignored. Did anyone read the reviews? There was no “analysis of the manner of treatment”,[7] in the reviews and in the criteria, this was considered “crucial”. I gave my analysis, and being the only one who read the book, I was in a position to compare it with other books of its genre. This book as outlined, is not notable, and there was not “sufficient disagreement”, as you suggest, since there was no discussion! Both parties at no time engaged in this part of the discussion. As to the books genre, it was intimated through the use of one particular source that the book could be considered a text book, and this again would be covered by the following criteria, [8]Thank you for you time, and would welcome any observations you may have, Kind Regards --Domer48 18:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Black_Falcon&oldid=137724647"