Sketches of a Young Man Wandering (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

I would like you to undlete my post Sketches of a Young Man Wandering. This was a post and reiview for one of my favorite books. Brandy Lewis ( talk) 03:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion Blatant advertising, no compelling reason to undelete. MBisanz ^talk 10:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. Aside from the page constituting an advert for the book, Wikipedia is not for reviews (see WP:NOT), and you should consider writing book reviews on your own website, not Wikipedia. Stifle ( talk) 14:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Echoing what Stifle said, I am happy to provide the content back to you if you would like to put it up on a personal website. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 16:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• endorse but permit recreation if there are published 3rd party reviews after the book has actually been published. A new small publisher's apparent first title, but not necessarily a vanity publisher. In general, attempted articles for books that have not yet actually become available in libraries pr attracted press notice are considered as mere publicity. 00:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG ( talk • contribs)
• Fiercely endorse - Having witnessed the demise of good literature in this country I am happy to say that a new voice has emerged!?!? That's not even a review, it's an ad; and for a clearly NN work at that. -- Orange Mike | Talk 20:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Also, it was a copyvio [1] of eharlequin.com. -- Suntag ☼ 01:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Schaffer paragraph (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) Jane Schaffer paragraph (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

The Schaffer paragraph is a form of writing used in middle and highschool. It turns up tens of thousands of results on Google and is an invaluable page to an encyclopedia. The article was properly sourced with notable .edu sites and was highly viewed before it was deleted (judging from the amount of vandalism). The article originally was Jane Schaffer paragraph (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) but was moved because Schaffer paragraph is more widely used. It should be undeleted because it had many page views and was written in the similar style and contex as the Cornell Notes article. I originally looked on Wikipedia because I wanted to find out more information on the paragraph (other sources did not explain it well) but we did not have one written yet. The article was deleted afterwards because the deleting admin was doing a deleting run (from what I can tell) of things pertaining to Jane Schaffer and deleted it thinking it was advertisement (see our discussion here User_talk:Penubag#Jane_Schaffer_paragraph. --  penubag  ( talk) 01:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn deletion and send to AFD. The article was not an advertisement, nor did it meet any of the other criteria for speedy deletion. It's open to debate whether it would be deleted at AFD. Stifle ( talk) 14:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, no preference with respect to AfD. Agreed that the article was not speedy eligible, and the first JSTOR article seems to support notability. Looks like a perfectly good stub. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Incorrect speedy from an admin who--while very much my friend-- takes sometimes a very broad view of G11. I'm glad to see that others agree with my general feeling about some of his interpretations, which he & I have discussed in a perfectly friendly way many times over by now. . He should have been notified of this review when bringing it here, even though he did suggest it himself several months ago. -- I just notified him on his talk page. DGG ( talk) 01:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Hey, like DGG says, I suggested it months ago; I'm always willing to abide by consensus when it becomes clear I was in error. (There's no tradition of infallibility in any of the belief systems I subscribe to.) -- Orange Mike | Talk 20:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - Per Stifle's review. Orangemike, if you want to restore the artice, you can close this DRV yourself (which always is better than letting things drag on). Comment There is a draft article at User:Penubag/Schaffer. -- Suntag ☼ 00:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Chaim Walkin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

Rabbi walkin is one of the most well-known and famous in Israel and the US. Born in Shanghai, China, Rabbi Chaim Walkin began his life during the miraculous escape of the Mirrer Yeshiva in WWII. coming to the US at 1946 as a kid who survived the war, thru Poland, Japan, and China. The New Yorh Times wrote and article front-page pic. about Chaim Walkin getting a citizenship. He studied at Telshe School in Cleveland, continuing at the Mir in Israel, becoming the Dean of rabbinical school Yeshiva Ateret Israel in Jerusalem [600 students]. maybe b/c it's mostlly inside the jewish area, you happen to not know about it. I will recommoend to bring the page back. you can look him up by google "rabbi chaim walkin". I think you can see him on youtube. since the entire jewish community world-wide speak hebrew and listen to him in this language, therefore it will be hard to show all the info.

here some info about the rabbi links:

1. http://www.1800eichlers.com/Browse-by-Author--Artist/Walkin--Rabbi-Chaim/c-1-131-812/
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Oaths [look for the paragraph that starts with "in his book, Daas Chaim, Rabbi Chaim Walkin...]
3. http://www.kabbalah.com/k/index.php/p=life/spirituality/terumah2 [see paragraph: "to answer this question, rabbi chaim walkin..]
4. http://www.nehora.com/index.cfm/product/3642?CFID=31097920&CFTOKEN=61225369
5. http://www.machonyaakov.org/staff/#bio [see rabbi IMMANUEL BERNSTEIN bio: "receiving Rabbinic ordination from Rabbi Chaim Walkin in 2001"]
6. http://www.azamra.org/HTML/kidshealth.htm [see under "EDUCATIONAL ADVISORS:Rabbi Chaim Walkin, Dean of Students, Yeshiva Ateret Israel..]
7. http://www.raananakollel.org/audio_c_wolkin_elul.html
8. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waLQyZUUVb4&feature=related

this is just a quick search online. I can look up for more. -- 89.139.53.155 ( talk) 17:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Looking at each of those:
  1. … is a book listing, with no informational content about this person.
  2. … is Wikipedia, and not a source.
  3. … is an article about something else, and tells us nothing about this person. It quotes xem; it does not document xem.
  4. … is another book listing, again with no informational content about this person.
  5. … documents another person, telling us nothing about the person at hand.
  6. … is a promotional brochure for about something else, and tells us nothing about this person. It provides no documentation of this person's life and works.
  7. … has no prose content. It's a sound recording, purportedly of this person speaking, and as such again not actually documentation of this person's life and works.
  8. … has no prose content. It's a video recording, purportedly of this person speaking, and as such again not actually documentation of this person's life and works.

Ironically, the one thing that actually would be useful as a source, a newspaper article that you state is actually about this person, documenting xem, is the one thing that you haven't cited.

You aren't making a case for having an encyclopaedia article. For a biographical article to exist, there need to be independent and reliable source materials documenting this person's life and works, from which such an article can be created in the first place. You aren't citing things that are even remotely close to being such sources. Please cite some proper sources. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G ( talk) 20:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Undelete One does not have to make a case for an encyclopedia article to avoid speedy deletion. all one must do if give some indication that might meet notability guidelines--if its disputed whether it does, afd is the place. Actually, I think he is very likely unquestionably notable, as the head of a rabbinical school (I presume this is the meaning of a "Dean" -- such has been repeatedly held to be notable.) For routine biographical facts, official websites are fine, per WP::PROF, DGG ( talk) 21:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, but it's a good idea to point the potential re-creator of the article in the direction of what to cite in order to avoid the otherwise almost inevitable AFD listing that both you and Stifle are talking about. If the creator can be encouraged to approach writing the article in such a way that it avoids a round trip through AFD in the first place, so much the better. Speedy deletion is also not a bar to someone creating, right now, a good, robustly sourced, stub article on this subject. In many ways that would be a better outcome than simply undeleting the prior article, which cited no sources at all. Uncle G ( talk) 22:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Undelete per DGG. A mere claim of how the person might be important defeats an A7 speedy deletion; it's open for anyone to list this article at AFD if it's restored, but it's not so certain that it would be deleted there. Stifle ( talk) 22:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• While the text as it existed at the time of the deletion pretty clearly qualified under CSD criterion A7, allegations of significance have now been made. Overturn speedy-deletion and list to AfD where Uncle G's concerns about sourcing can be fully evaluated. Rossami (talk) 02:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the speedy deletion - The A7 importance/significance claim needs to be in the article, not outside of it. A7 is a simple thing to overcome and if the editors interested in the topic couldn't even do that, then that seems to validate Uncle G's position and why we have A7 in the first place. -- Suntag ☼ 00:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• As for Wikipedia notability, I only found one Wikipedia reliable source in the past 20+ years, and that only has a short quote from him: Infield, Tom (October 9, 1983). "A City Is Bord For Followers of 'True Judaism'". The Philadelphia Inquirer. pp. A2. Retrieved 16 November 2008. "The Talmud instructs Jews not to make provocations of any kind; this is the reason," said Rabbi Chaim Walkin, spiritual leader of the yeshiva, a religious school, in Petah Tikva near Tel Aviv and a self-described ardent disciple of Rabbi Schach. "Being that we believe the words of the Talmud are as eternal as the Bible itself,[ we are bound not to do anything to provoke the nations of the world. . . . Any settlement on the West Bank is a blatant provocation." {{ cite news}}: |section= ignored ( help). Also see Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. There doesn't seem to be enough info to maintain a Wikipedia article. -- Suntag ☼ 11:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• On the other hand, this DRV discussion is to determine whether consensus supports the deletion under wp:speedy deletion. Wikipedia notability is an AfD issue and should not be a deciding factor in this DRV. (no wonder no one has closed this yet). -- Suntag ☼ 11:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse speedy deletion per Uncle G and BLP. needs to stay gone until reliable sources are found. Once they are, I will naturally support recreation/undeletion. Eluchil404 ( talk) 07:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC) reply

OK, I have two newspaper articles. should I post them here or Email it to one of you guys? -- 85.250.49.147 ( talk) 14:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Post links here please. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't have them online, I have it as a picture file. [should I upload it on an image-website?]

Please. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply

If there is no response shortly I guess we will close this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply

I would think so. We need specific cites to these sources, not just assurancess of their existence. In any event, this deletion and its endorsement shoudl be without prejudice against a rewritten properly sourced version of the article demonstrating notability. Eluchil404 ( talk) 02:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Berg v. Obama (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

See 08-570. This could now turn into a SCOTUS case a lá Bush v. Gore. bender235 ( talk) 14:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. Clear consensus to delete; if the Supreme Court grants cert then that would be grounds for the creation of a new article but would not invalidate the original AfD. Mackensen (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. No reason given how the deletion process has not been correctly followed in this matter; DRV is a place to go when the deletion process has not been properly followed, as opposed to a place to get a second hearing in the hope it will be more favourable. As Mackensen suggests, if certoriari is granted, it'll be a different story. Stifle ( talk) 21:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• 'Nov 3 2008 Application (08A391) denied by Justice Souter.' that would seem to mean it's not going to be a SC case, right? -- Rividian ( talk) 22:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I believe that referred to the supplemental request for an injunction and not the request itself. Mackensen (talk) 12:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• endorse deletion I argued for retention of this article I disagre with this deletion. I think that the lawsuit got enough coverage that it should have an article. However, deletion seems reasonable, and DRVing based on the possibility that it might get cert is not enough. If it gets cert (which I strongly doubt) then we will have an article on it. JoshuaZ ( talk) 01:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. Proper process followed, consensus to delete was clear, closing admin called it right. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 22:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Merge and redirect to an appropriate article containing discussion of the (frivolous) challenges to Obama's eligibility. (FYI, Mackensen is correct that Justice Souter denied an emergency in-chambers application for a stay rather than the certiorari petition itself. A single Justice cannot finally dispose of a petition. According to SCOTUSblog, the defendants' response to the cert. petition is due on December 1, after which the petition will be considered by the full Court, although the chances of its being granted are infinitesimal.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion - not even notable in the sense that "gold-fringed flag" theories are notable. -- Orange Mike | Talk 20:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, consensus was properly interpreted, and as U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick said, the case is "frivolous and not worthy of discussion." But I'm glad it was listed here, since it brought the AfD to my attention, and the bold prediction that it "is a very important case involving the US Constitution that will more than likely cause Obama to lose the election". -- Stormie ( talk) 01:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion - I argued keep in that AfD and provide plenty of reliable sources to establish that the topic met WP:N. However, it seems the closer interpreted the debate correctly. The sources I found only went back to Aug. 22, 2008, there were some OR and POV issues, etc., etc. which seemed to turn off most editors. There even were some Ignore All Rule smell/importance delete positions. Even after I posted all those references, it didn't seem to sway the subsequent !votes too much. As Newyorkbrad points out above, there is room in Wikipedia for sourced content on this topic, but perhaps not presently in a free standing article. -- Suntag ☼ 00:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC) reply