This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 08:57, 7 January 2022 (Replaced obsolete html tags and reduced Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 08:57, 7 January 2022 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Replaced obsolete html tags and reduced Lint errors. (Task 12))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 03:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Dead File
Tagged for notability since September 2007, notability not established in secondary sources. Prod tag was removed, so bringing to AfD. If the Church of Scientology's "Dead File" practices are discussed enough in secondary sources to warrant an article in Misplaced Pages - it is not asserted in this article's present state. Cirt (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
Delete, as nom. Cirt (talk) 03:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC). Cirt (talk) 03:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)-- Still feel the same as when I nominated it, but I struck this part out, per below. Cirt (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC).- That's completely unnecessary. This is a discussion, not a vote. The closing administrator knows that you want the article deleted. You nominated it for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 03:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have frequently seen this done either way. Cirt (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
- However, you do bring up a good point that the closing admin knows I was the nominator, so I've struck out the above. Cirt (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
- I have frequently seen this done either way. Cirt (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
- That's completely unnecessary. This is a discussion, not a vote. The closing administrator knows that you want the article deleted. You nominated it for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 03:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep sources seem adequate, even if just adequate. This was one of several dozen article prodded at the same time. I removed some of prods, saying that I thought them sufficiently controversial to be worth an AfD. DGG (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Adequate sources and is notable. This is a step in the cofs shunning process just before "disconnection". --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - nominator is woefully ignorant of subject area he is mass-nominating for deletion - David Gerard (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Saying Nominator is woefully ignorant of subject area is rude, an assumption and you have no idea what I do or do not know, and has nothing to do with whether or not the subject matter is covered enough in secondary sources to assert notability. Cirt (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's clear you don't know much if anything from your choices for mass-nomination. While I don't at all question your sincerity, I fear I must question your judgement. "Notability" and sourcing are guidelines, and this is an example of why - you do appear to have gone through a bureaucratic box-ticking exercise when mass-nominating, rather than applying subject-area knowledge. As such, you should reasonably expect to have this pointed out - David Gerard (talk) 12:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Saying Nominator is woefully ignorant of subject area is rude, an assumption and you have no idea what I do or do not know, and has nothing to do with whether or not the subject matter is covered enough in secondary sources to assert notability. Cirt (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- For your information, I have knowledge of the subject matter. I was putting that knowledge aside, because according to Misplaced Pages:Notability, notability is assessed through coverage in other sources. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Well? Has the subject of this article received such coverage in independent WP:RS sources? Where? Which sources? That would be a much better AfD "Keep" rationale than going after the nominator. Cirt (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC).
- Keep - the comments on the part of people who are knowledgeable about the subject are persuasive to me. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment
If enough evidence can be shown that there is significant coverage of this subject in independent secondary sources, I will withdraw my nomination and close this AfD myself. Cirt (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. The New Zealand government report establishes verifiability, barely. The article needs work and needs to focus less on the primary source, but it can be salvaged. *** Crotalus *** 20:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Postscript: I'd like to say sorry to Cirt for being such an arse on this AFD and several others. I may have disagreed with the deletion nominations, but being a dick was not the way to do it. I apologise to Cirt and the wiki in general for my dickishness. I shall try to do better - David Gerard (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)