User talk:Nihonjoe/Archive 31

Archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73

Article not deleted

In reference to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 6#CodeGuide, there were two articles listed under that AfD; only the first has been deleted. Ham Pastrami (talk) 07:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. It's been deleted now. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Per Bylund

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Per Bylund. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Carabinieri (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for replacing my link to FanLit.net

Dear Nihonjoe, I wanted to thank you for replacing my link on the Brandon Sanderson page. I have been nicely fighting with a couple of other editors for several days about the links I added that they took off. Unfortunately, I am new to editing (though I use Wikipedia a lot) and I made the mistake of adding a bunch of links to my own website at one time, which I now know is considered spam. We have a discussion going on about it here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Kahooper.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29_and_links_to_his_website. I considered the site to be something that readers of those wikipages would definitely want to know about (I am not selling anything and I realize that links from Wiki do not change my search engine placement), but it seems I went about things the wrong way, so now I'm considered a spammer. I see that you are really busy, but if you are willing, I'd appreciate your input at that discussion. Kahooper (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)kahooper

What you're running into is conflict of interest concerns. Becuase you added the link by stating that you were linking to your own site, it was automatically assumed to be a spam link. If you think people might think your links are spam, I recommend posting the link to the talk page and asking people if they think adding it would be appropriate. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Nihonjoe. I mentioned on the administrator page that I now understand Conflict of Interest concerns (though I didn't when I started adding the links). Mangoe seems to think it is not a COI, but others think it is. I will wait and see how it falls out, and do what you suggest, but I hope I won't be "blacklisted" because of perceived spam. Kahooper (talk) 04:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)kahooper

Hi Nihonjoe,

I'm concerned about how low the bar would be set by accepting this link. I notice you replaced the link on the Brian Sanderson page (since removed by another editor than I). My objections to Kahooper's addition in part is the COI, but even were the link added by someone else, I would still remove it. The reviews are written apparently only in one case by a professional reviewer. I have no problem with that reviewer's work being added to the page, but linked or cited to the original work off of FL.net. The editorial oversight on this page appears to be Kahooper, who though they are a university professor or educator in writing, it is in scientific writing I believe, not fantasy and not literature, so a totally different domain. Though the bar may be higher than a random blog or the amazon 'write your own review' it's not much higher (in my opinion) and opens the pages to having links added by just about anyone with a website. Wikipedia is a huge magnet for external links, and my fear is that by not maintaining a strict adherence to WP:EL (and I realize my own interpretation is a strict one), then it makes it much easier for anyone with a webpage to rationalize per the guuideline.

I see Kahooper's actions as stubborn (but most new accounts revert without moving to the talk page because they're not familiar with wikipedia policies and mores - certainly not anything worth a block), I hope she realizes why I am opposing her page. Because it is one of many without any real claim to notability or expertise, not because she is the webmaster.

I usually trust the opinions of admins and often become educated by discussing. If you wouldn't mind giving me an idea of your rationale, and thoughts on what I've posted, I would be most appreciative. Thanks, WLU (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In this case, I (re)linked to it because the page provided reviews for three of Sanderson's books, they were decent reviews, and were likely to be useful to someone interested in quickly learning more about the books in the context of a review. Rather than simply removing them, I find it infinitely more productive to have the link there and only replace it if you can find something better. Yes, it may not meet your almost unattainable qualifications, but it provides something useful to the reader of the article. Removing it only removes that opportunity for the reader. The reviews on that page may or may not be "professional" (which is really a very subjective term for measuring, as very few sites give any indication that their reviews are edited, or that the reviewers are somehow compensated), but they are the ONLY reviews anyone has ever linked to from the Brandon Sanderson article. I think it is better to give the reader SOMETHING, rather than NOTHING. Apparently you and JzG disagree. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the reply. As a note, though, my standard isn't really impossible. New books, sometimes even old ones, are reviewed in newspapers and magazines, and I believe it's Publisher's Weekly that reviews just about every new book that comes out. Also, this section gives a bit of guidance from what WIkiproject:Novels has to say. I've also posted a question here but the project seems to be rather moribund so I'm not sure what kind of response I'll get. WLU (talk) 12:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to consolidate this discussion (which seems to be in several places and is making me dizzy), so let's continue here. I hope you'll make an appearance. Thanks! Kahooper (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)kahooper

Milhist coordinators election has started

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 21:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Patrick S. J. Carmack

Patrick S. J. Carmack has been listed for deletion for 12 days with no objections. I thought 5 days was enough. Baked ham (talk) 09:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

We're waiting for someone else to participate in the discussion. We don't usually delete article on the say-so of one person. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been deleted now. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"Geinō Asahi"?

Joe, I've just corrected what I thought was an obvious slip in Weekly Asahi Geinō: saying that the magazine it's not to be confused with is Shũkan Asahi, not something called "Geinō Asahi". But then I realized that it was you who wrote the latter. Well, you usually have a good grasp of what you're writing about, and I'm no expert on weekly (or other) magazines; maybe there really is a Geinō Asahi. So maybe I screwed up. Don't hesitate to revert! -- Hoary (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Japanese title of Weekly Asahi Geinō is Shūkan Asahi Geinō. I'm sure you can see where there might be confusion between Shūkan Asahi Geinō and Shūkan Asahi. I've changed it back. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, hang on. First, I'll admit that my question above is confusingly constructed. But let's set aside my question. I completely agree with your answer. However, the article now says (after markup stripping): Asahi Geinō is not related to the Asahi Shimbun or to the similarly-titled Geinō Asahi (which is owned by the Asahi Shimbun). Is this right? -- Hoary (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's correct. Weekly Asahi Geinō (or Asahi Geinō, for short) is owned by Tokuma Shoten. Shūkan Asahi (or Weekly Asahi) is owned by the Asahi Shimbun. Similar titles, but not the same company or magazine. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I agree with all of that. And I agree with your edit summary for your most recent edit to the article. But look again at what you've got the article to say. -- Hoary (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reworded it just for you, since you seem to be having so much difficulty putting it together. Is that better? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(Gasp.) I hate to say this, but no. You're talking here about an Asahi Shinbunsha publication titled Shūkan Asahi. Fine. You're talking there about an Asahi Shinbunsha publication titled Geinō Asahi. I've never heard of it. -- Hoary (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Aha. It would have been easier if you had just written, "In the article, you have "Geinō Asahi" as being owned by Asahi Shinbun, but the title is actually "Weekly Asahi" (or Shūkan Asahi)". You kept beating around the bush so I didn't understand what you were trying to say. It's fixed now. (^_^; ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! But look, when I encounter a bush, the first thing I think of is beating around it. (Should I instead whack it or something?) Yes, you have a point: my success at the very start of this in implementing WP:SPADE without having some dipshit well-intentioned user hit me with WP:CIV should encourage me call them as I see them.

It's good that we finally agree on the magazines. (I haven't seen this week's issue. Any really tasty pics in it?) And on IOND "University" too. -- Hoary (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what's in this week's (or any other week's) issue as I don't read either. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Help Needed with Shōsuke Tanihara article.

Howdy! Article Shōsuke Tanihara was recently nominated for deletion. The nomination was withdrawn per notability established from Truth or Doubt. Currently, the article is nothing more than a list of movies he's appeared in. I'd like to add some meat, and I was hoping you could help identify and translate information about his personal life and prominence in Japan. Google news has lots of hits [1] AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What am I, chopped liver. Definitely feeling chopped. ;-) ? AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you got lost in all the other ones. I'll take a look at it. I recommend posting to WikiProject Japan, too, as someone there may be able to get to it more quickly. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 12:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I've done a little bit, and may do more later. It should be good enough to keep the deletion hounds at bay. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw. Thanks for your help! AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 17:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A little help

Hi, I know you can understand Japanese. I have created an article, but I need to write the pronuntiation of アソボット戦記五九 for both the infobox and the introduction text of the article. Can you help me? I don't know too much about Japanese. --Twicemost (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

アソボット戦記五九 is the Japanese title of Monkey Typhoon, so I'm not sure why you need that for the Vampire Master Dark Crimson article. They have nothing to do with each other. The Japanese title for Vampire Master Dark Crimson is VAMPIRE MASTER ダーククリムゾン. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, sorry, SORRY!!! I taugh you the worng scripts. This happened because I didn't know how to make infoboxes and, because I had to make one to create the article, I copied that of the Monkey Typhoon article to use it as a guide. But it seems I accidentally wrote here the kanji of Monkey Typhoon instead of the kanji of Vampire Master, please forgive me for this.

What I need is the Japanese pronuntiation of the manga's title, as the infobox says A name trans in the title space. --Twicemost (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've updated it for you. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Weight/Blood type, and nearly everything else on Japanese idols

Hi, Nihonjoe. Am I the only one troubled by the implications of the way the conversation HERE is going? The specifics: An editor has unilaterally removed weight and blood type data from Template:Female adult bio templates at several Japanese subjects. Reasons given were "subtrivia", without any discussion in regard to the significance these data have in Japanese idol profiles. (Personally these data mean nothing to me, but they are ubiquitous in Japanese profiles, which indicates that they are important within the subject area.) When questioned, these data were called "unreliable" because of their sourcing with these standard profiles... which, by implication means that all data with these profiles should be removed... and since any such data that is sourced is sourced with these, then we can say good-bye to any coverage of nearly every Japanese pop-subject... Dekkappai (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest making a Template:Japan AV idol (or something similar, as someone suggested). There are more than enough articles which would use it, and then it could include things specific to that group. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm beginning to think that a specifically Japanese idol template (AV & non-AV usually have the same parameters) would solve the problem of data used in Japanese subjects, but almost always irrelevant in U.S. subjects. (Precedent for this kind of thing is already set since we do have a template:Infobox Korean Film to deal with data unique to Korean films.) However this would still not solve the immediate problem of blood type & weight (luckily shoe-size doesn't seem to have been noticed) at these articles. Thanks for the feedback, NihonJoe. I'll think about cooking up a template... Dekkappai (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I see Japanese Wiki has a specifically AV template HERE. Personally, I don't think we need to go into the AV-specific details (本番, ぶっかけ, etc.) given at this template (beyond concerns over subjects better left discussed in the body of the article, problems of sourcing & verifiability arise... I see this template more as a summary of the standard idol profile, which does not include such details.) Following the Japanese model somewhat, I would like to have fields for Bust, Waist & Hip fields rather than "measurements" as in the current adult-female template, and also for Japan-specific links like JMDb & the Web Idol-Dictionary. I've started work on a template HERE. Feel free to comment or change and to point me to a better discussion forum for this if necessary. Thanks! Dekkappai (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The main thing I would recommend is making a guide explaining each field so there is no confusion. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that-- Right now I'm chipping away at the template (never done anything like this before, and having a little difficulty with the code). One question: Do you think it's appropriate to have a field for Japanese (kanji/kana) name? Dekkappai (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I thought that's what the "japanese_name" field was for (another reason to make the guide!). I would recommend the method used by {{Infobox animanga/Header}}, where there are three fields: the "English" name, kanji, and romanized in Japanese order (basically what happens with {{nihongo}}). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you've been peeking... yes, that's what the field's for, I'll write out a guide next week, then go through the idols & replace the "Adult female bio" templates at Japanese subjects with this one (assuming it doesn't cause any objections). I've been testing changes at the template at my sandbox sub for Maria Takagi. I'll look at the other template for ideas. Dekkappai (talk) 01:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-traditional readings

Could you take a look here and give your input?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It should never be romanized as "kisaten". ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

G. Edward Griffin

Hi Nihonjoe. I was just about to vote when you closed the discussion. FWIW, this is what I would have written: *Weak Keep. Knew nothing about the man until I researched him just now on Lexis-Nexis, Factiva and JSTOR. He seems to be a borderline case of notability. According to Lexis-Nexis, 26 independent sources have either written about him or quoted him in relations to his book The Creature from Jekyll Island. In fact, his book was apparently ranked as a best-selling business book for several weeks, according to the The Calgary Herald (Alberta). He then gets major mentions six times in other newspapers and dozens of other mentions for unrelated issues. On the other hand, according to JSTOR, academics apparently have not written about him or his work, so that detracts from notability a little bit. Overall, he still appears to be semi-notable. I know you don't care in the least at this stage, but I just wasted a half-hour researching him, so I want to post it somewhere! (^_^) Sorry. Delete this comment if you want. No big deal. All the best, J Readings (talk) 11:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you list those here? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I also realize that it's not a vote; I meant to write "contribute to the discussion." I have no vested interest in this article one way or the other. Here are the results from Lexis-Nexis.

Major mentions:

1 Bestselling business books The Calgary Herald (Alberta), July 4, 2006 Tuesday, CALGARY BUSINESS; Pg. F5, 71 words, Calgary Herald ... Creature From Jekyll Island -- G. Edward Griffin4 Complete Canadian ...

This may be a decent mention, though at 71 words, it's very small. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

2 Opinion Fairbanks Daily News-Miner (Alaska), October 27, 2005 Thursday, LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, 679 words G EDWARD GRIFFIN (55%);

Letters to the editor do not really count for anything. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

3 IN THE MAIL : The U.N.: Wrong then, wrong now Grand Forks Herald, July 5, 2005 Tuesday, EDT, 730 words ... United Nations" by G. Edward Griffin. The following quote is taken from that ...

Letters to the editor do not really count for anything. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

4 THE U.N.: WRONG THEN, WRONG NOW Grand Forks Herald, JULY 5, 2005 Tuesday FINAL EDITION, B-EDITORIAL; IN THE MAIL; Pg. 03, 738 words ... United Nations" by G. Edward Griffin. The following quote is taken from that ...

Letters to the editor do not really count for anything. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

5 NEW LIBRARY BOOKS Grand Forks Herald, JULY 13, 2003 Sunday FINAL EDITION, D-BOOKS; Pg. 04, 540 words ... Vitamin B17" by G. Edward Griffin contends that the answer to eliminating ...

I'd have to see more of this one to determine whether it could be considered a reliable source and significant coverage. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

6 Paper notes need 'real' backing National Post (Canada), November 11, 1999 Thursday, 769 words, Jonathan Chevreau;Jonathan Chevreau can be reached by e-mail at jchevreau@nationalpost.com G EDWARD GRIFFIN (71%);

I'd have to see more of this one to determine whether it could be considered a reliable source and significant coverage. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Anywhere in the article

1 Most writers suggest stimulus package is bound to fail Doomed herring Contra Costa Times (California), February 2, 2008 Saturday, OPINION; Letters, 2715 words, Contra Costa Times ... will crank up what G. Edward Griffin, in "The Creature from Jekyll ...

Letters to the editor do not really count for anything. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

2 OPINION US FED NEEDS GLOBAL WATCH Business Line, December 29, 2007 Saturday, 1384 words ... dollars and its timing and quantum? This is what G. Edward Griffin, the author of The Creature From Jekyll ...

I'd have to see more of this one to determine whether it could be considered a reliable source and significant coverage. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

3 OPINION US FED NEEDS GLOBAL WATCH Business Line, December 29, 2007 Saturday, 1384 words ... dollars and its timing and quantum? This is what G. Edward Griffin, the author of The Creature From Jekyll ...

Same entry as above. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

4 23rd District The Times of Trenton (New Jersey), November 4, 2007 Sunday, NEWS; Pg. G11, 1831 words ... Creature from Jekyll Island," G. Edward Griffin HOBBIES : Basketball, tennis, ...

5 Liberty Dollar: Ron Paul Gets His Own Money PR Newswire US, July 10, 2007 Tuesday 9:53 PM GMT, 447 words ... campaign seriously until G. Edward Griffin mentioned his support. It ...

Press releases generally can not be used as reliable sources. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

6 Liberty Dollar: Ron Paul Gets His Own Money U.S. Newswire, July 10, 2007 Tuesday 5:53 PM EST, POLITICAL EDITORS, 363 words ... campaign seriously until G. Edward Griffin mentioned his support. It ...

Press releases generally can not be used as reliable sources. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

7 Nigeria; Media Complicity in the World's Worst Crimes Africa News, June 8, 2007 Friday, 1248 words, Daily Trust ... On Terror, author G Edward Griffin advised that the best way to ...

I'd have to see more of this one to determine whether it could be considered a reliable source and significant coverage. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

8 MEDIA COMPLICITY IN THE WORLD'S WORST CRIMES The Daily Trust (Nigeria) - AAGM, June 8, 2007 Friday, 1269 words, Aisha Umar Yusuf ... On Terror, author G Edward Griffin advised that the best way to ...

Seems to be the same article as above. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

9 Putnam Library lists new fiction/nonfiction titles Charleston Gazette (West Virginia), May 23, 2007, Wednesday, METRO WEST PUTNAM; Pg. P11, 786 words ... Without Cancer" by G. Edward Griffin"Writing Essays About ...

Not sure if a list of new books in the library can be seen as coverage. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

10 Business vs. government: in his book The Big Ripoff, Timothy Carney blows away the deception that Big Business and the government are adversaries and that the government defends the average citizen; The BigRipoff: How Big Business and Big Government Steal Your Money; Book review The New American, January 22, 2007, Pg. 31(2), 1364 words, Farmer, Brian ... Jekyll Island, by G. Edward Griffin, which, like The Big Ripoff, is also ...

Doesn't seem significant. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

11 INSIGHT 1-1-07 Albanys Insanity, January 1, 2007 Monday 8:26 PM EST, 416 words, Rus Thompson ... highest obligation of patriotism."--G. Edward Griffin "It is easier to denature ...

12 FILM/DISCUSSION SERIES AT UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MARINETTE US States News, October 13, 2006 Friday 11:18 PM EST, 125 words, US States News ... a documentary by G. Edward Griffin, Tuesday, October 24 ...

13 Business, Inc. The Calgary Herald (Alberta), July 10, 2006 Monday, CALGARY BUSINESS; Pg. B11, 230 words, Calgary Herald ... Creature From Jekyll Island --G. Edward Griffin4 Complete Canadian ...

14 Bestselling business books The Calgary Herald (Alberta), July 4, 2006 Tuesday, CALGARY BUSINESS; Pg. F5, 71 words, Calgary Herald ... Creature From Jekyll Island -- G. Edward Griffin4 Complete Canadian ...

This one may be significant (best selling), but is very small (71 words). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

15 Dirty Deeds; The Dorean Group promised hundreds of homeowners that their mortgages would go away. Guess what? They didn't. East Bay Express (California), April 5, 2006 Wednesday, NEWS; Features, 3954 words, By Chris Thompson ... bankers. The godfather of this movement is G. Edward Griffin, the founder of American Media, ...

16 In Trust Canadian Business, March 27, 2006 / April 9, 2006, INVESTIGATIVE REPORT; Pg. 62, 8481 words, BY MATTHEW McCLEARN ... in 1994 by G. Edward Griffin continues to fuel new ...

Seems like a significant article, but if he's only mentioned in passing I don't think this could be used. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

17 Opinion Fairbanks Daily News-Miner (Alaska), October 27, 2005 Thursday, LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, 679 words ... Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin [phone number 800- ... G EDWARD GRIFFIN (55%);

Letters to the editor do not really count for anything. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

18 Bestselling business books The Calgary Herald (Alberta), October 3, 2005 Monday, CALGARZ BUSINESS; Pg. F2, 77 words, Calgary Herald ... Creature From Jekyll Island -- G. Edward Griffin6. Who Moved ...

19 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR The job is to interpret law Bismarck Tribune (North Dakota), July 29, 2005 Friday, Pg. 8A, 882 words, By RON SHAW, Bismarck ... United Nations"Êby G. Edward Griffin.The following quote is taken from that ...

Letters to the editor do not really count for anything. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

20 IN THE MAIL: Beware of bubble in housing market Grand Forks Herald, July 10, 2005 Sunday, EDT, 1802 words ... book written by G. Edward Griffin, an author and speaker ...

Letters to the editor do not really count for anything. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

21 BEWARE OF BUBBLE IN HOUSING MARKET Grand Forks Herald, JULY 10, 2005 Sunday FINAL EDITION, D-OPINION; IN THE MAIL; Pg. 03, 1822 words ... book written by G. Edward Griffin, an author and speaker ...

Letters to the editor do not really count for anything. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

22 IN THE MAIL : The U.N.: Wrong then, wrong now Grand Forks Herald, July 5, 2005 Tuesday, EDT, 730 words ... United Nations" by G. Edward Griffin. The following quote is taken from that ...

Letters to the editor do not really count for anything. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

23 THE U.N.: WRONG THEN, WRONG NOW Grand Forks Herald, JULY 5, 2005 Tuesday FINAL EDITION, B-EDITORIAL; IN THE MAIL; Pg. 03, 738 words ... United Nations" by G. Edward Griffin. The following quote is taken from that ...

Letters to the editor do not really count for anything. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

24 So many 'breakthroughs' UK Newsquest Regional Press - This is Oxfordshire, June 1, 2005, News, 306 words ... unending regularity. In G Edward Griffin's book World Without ...

25 So many 'breakthroughs' UK Newsquest Regional Press - This is Oxfordshire, May 28, 2005, News, 305 words ... unending regularity. In G Edward Griffin's book World Without ...

26 Bestselling Business Books The Calgary Herald (Alberta), January 31, 2005 Monday, BUSINESS; Pg. D2, 82 words, For The Calgary Herald ... Creature From Jekyll Island -- G. Edward Griffin9. CFO Survival ...

27 THE MAN WHO SHAPED THE FEDERAL RESERVE The Boston Globe, November 28, 2004, Sunday, 670 words, By Robert Gavin Globe Staff ... Federal Reserve by G. Edward Griffin (America Media Publishing, $ ...

28 The Boston Globe business book review column Boston Globe, November 28, 2004, Sunday, 685 words, By Robert Gavin ... Federal Reserve by G. Edward Griffin (America Media Publishing, $ ...

29 Top 10 Books on History and Current Affairs National Post's Financial Post & FP Investing (Canada), August 9, 2004 Monday, FINANCIAL POST: FP EDGE; Pg. FP8, 190 words, Books for Business ... Federal Reserve by G. Edward Griffin (American Media) $ ...

30 Pharmaceutical cartel; Letters To The Editor; Letter to the Editor The New American, June 28, 2004, Pg. 2(2), 295 words, Keith, Robert S. ... well-documented in G. Edward Griffin's World Without Cancer).The ...

Letters to the editor do not really count for anything. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

31 In the Community Learning Austin American-Statesman (Texas), April 15, 2004, Thursday, Lifestyle; Pg. E2, 316 words, Compiled by Alex Dotte, AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF ... 7 p.m. Friday. G. Edward Griffin, author of 'The Creature from Jekyll ...

32 NEW LIBRARY BOOKS Grand Forks Herald, JULY 13, 2003 Sunday FINAL EDITION, D-BOOKS; Pg. 04, 540 words ... Vitamin B17" by G. Edward Griffin contends that the answer to eliminating ...

33 LETTERS; IS FLAG-BURNING REALLY JUST FREE SPEECH? Philadelphia Daily News, June 13, 2003 Friday 4STAR EDITION, EDITORIAL OPINION; Pg. 16, 318 words ... guzzling SUVs anyhow?G. Edward GriffinPhiladelphia

Letters to the editor do not really count for anything. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

34 RUNNING FOR GOVERNOR: THE OTHER CANDIDATES The Oregonian, April 25, 2002 Thursday, NEWS FOCUS;, 2228 words ... Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin. Why are you running? We are losing $20 ...

35 THE GOLDBUG VARIATIONS Village Voice (New York, NY), January 8, 2002, Tuesday, 1154 words, julian dibbell ... in, for instance, G. Edward Griffin's not quite entirely ...

36 US in no danger of recession: Fed Reserve president Channel NewsAsia, December 6, 2000 Wednesday, BUSINESS, 207 words ... The Creature from Jekyll Island : A Second Look at the Federal Reserve G. Edward Griffin ...

37 Fed's Parry sees US economy sustaining 5 percent growth Channel NewsAsia, August 11, 2000 Friday, BUSINESS, 230 words ... Secrets of the Temple : How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country By William Greider The Creature from Jekyll Island : A Second Look at the Federal Reserve By G. Edward Griffin Secrets of the Federal Reserve By Eustace Clarence Mullins Congress, the President and the Federal Reserve : The Politics of American Monetary Policymaking By Irwin L. Morris ...

38 US Federal Reserve sees more signs of slowing US economy Channel NewsAsia, August 10, 2000 Thursday, BUSINESS, 289 words ... Secrets of the Temple : How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country By William Greider The Creature from Jekyll Island : A Second Look at the Federal Reserve By G. Edward Griffin Secrets of the Federal Reserve By Eustace Clarence Mullins Congress, the President and the Federal Reserve : The Politics of American Monetary Policymaking By Irwin L. Morris ...

39 Get-rich pitch 'bogus'; Seven states have determined Global Prosperity is an illegal pyramid scheme Spokesman Review (Spokane, WA), July 2, 2000, Sunday,, 2665 words, Karen Dorn Steele and Bill Morlin Staff writers ... Americans are broke, author G. Edward Griffin writes. He's a contributing ...

40 Net gives renewed life to Laetrile, the reputed cancer cure The San Diego Union-Tribune, April 6, 2000, Thursday, NEWS;Pg. ZS-1, 1991 words, Lucette Lagnado; THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ... modern Laetrile movement, G. Edward Griffin, author of "World Without ...

41 Laetrile making a comeback on the Net Deseret News (Salt Lake City), March 23, 2000, Thursday, 1041 words, The Wall Street Journal ... modern laetrile movement, G. Edward Griffin, author of "World Without ...

42 Paper notes need 'real' backing National Post (Canada), November 11, 1999 Thursday, 769 words, Jonathan Chevreau;Jonathan Chevreau can be reached by e-mail at jchevreau@nationalpost.com ... com/norfed.html, G. Edward Griffin calls Norfed silver ... G EDWARD GRIFFIN (71%);

43 The Intentional Peasant: Those funny little green things; money only has meaning because society gives it meaning Countryside & Small Stock Journal, November 1, 1999, No. 6, Vol. 83; Pg. 112 ; ISSN: 8750-7595, 1953 words ... many good books, such as G. Edward Griffin's The Creature From Jekyl Island ( ...

44 FEMALE TIMES: REDUCING OESTROGEN; THE ALTERNATIVE PATH Belfast News Letter (Northern Ireland), September 22, 1999, Wednesday, FEATURES; Pg. 28, 29, 672 words, Dr Finbar Magee ... Without Cancer by G Edward Griffin.

45 U.N. DOESN'T DESERVE GIFT OR U.S. SUPPORT MICHIANA POINT OF VIEW South Bend Tribune (Indiana), November 19, 1997, Wednesday,, 1001 words, MARK ANDERSON ... by independent researcher G. Edward Griffin in his book "The Fearful ...

46 WHAT THEY'RE READING Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Little Rock, AR), July 28, 1996, Sunday, 703 words ... disregarded before the crucifixion.G. Edward Griffin's look at the Federal ...

47 Q: Is it time to consider U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations? ; Yes: U.S. security and world peace would benefit from a pullback. Insight on the News, August 28, 1995, Monday, Final Edition, Part SYMPOSIUM; Pg. 18, 1926 words, Andrea Seastrand; INSIGHT ... it be replaced? Author G. Edward Griffin, who has written extensively ...

48 BEWARE THE WORLD ARMY Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Little Rock, AR), August 21, 1995, Monday, 207 words ... United Nations" by G. Edward Griffin.JANELLE FOERSTERLeslie

49 NAMESAKE WAS A BANKER, LEADER South Bend Tribune (Indiana), August 14, 1995, Monday,, 525 words, MARK ANDERSON Hometown News Editor ... notes. Historian and author G. Edward Griffin noted that being honest ...

50 AMENDENTS INVITE LEGAL POLLUTION Crain's Detroit Business, April 17, 1995, Letters; Pg. 8, 1814 words ... figures quoted in G. Edward Griffin's book The Creature from Jekyll ...

If you need me to clarify anything within those articles, please let me know. I'll take a look again. Personally, I just think he's a borderline case of notability based on this. But that's just my opinion. Best, J Readings (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I left comments regarding several of them. The ones I didn't comment on seemed to be not really significant enough to comment on. I would say, based on this, that he's either barely not notable, or barely notable. It's hard to tell unless we can determine how much of these articles is devoted to discussing Griffin himself. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the letters-to-the-editor. I was just listing what was registered on Lexis-Nexis. On the major mentions, #5 just lists one of his books (assuming it's the same author) and a description. Doesn't really matter. On #6, 71% of the article is about him. Here's a blockquote sample which hopefully doesn't infringe copyright by pasting it here:

On his Web site at www.realityzone.com/norfed.html, G. Edward Griffin calls Norfed silver certificates 'real money.' Mr. Griffin is the author of The Creature from Jekyll Island, a book about the U.S. monetary system. Check the Web sites and you'll see that Norfed paper certificates are beautifully designed, in various denominations with the Statue of Liberty predominant in the design. In his book, Mr. Griffin suggests that before the United States can abandon Federal Reserve notes (FRNs), it would have to be able to convert them into real money that could function in their absence. His dream was to create a free-market, private money system superior to that issued by governments.Whether it would replace FRNs, or exist side by side, the hope was it would pressure the U.S. government to reform the monetary system, much like how Federal Express forced the U.S. post office to change. Economist Bernard von NotHaus read Mr. Griffin's book and took him up on the challenge, creating Norfed. It delivers silver bars to a warehouse in Idaho, where the bars are converted into Norfed Silver Libertys containing one ounce of 0.999% fine silver. The warehouse issues receipts, called American Liberty Currency, to Norfed in denominations based on the amount of silver each represents. Anyone who presents Norfed certificates to the warehouse is guaranteed to receive Norfed Libertys in return ( a bit like the old 'will pay to the bearer on demand' declaration that used to appear on government-backed paper money). A national network of privately owned redemption centres also exchange certificates for Silver Liberties. The price of the certificates includes both the market value of the underlying silver and the cost of converting bullion into Silver Libertys, storing them (prepaid for five years), insuring against loss, printing costs, administration and marketing. The silver certificates also show the FRN value at the time of issue. Although that value will eventually decrease due to inflation, the silver certificates will hold their purchasing power because of the silver content backing them. So a $1 silver certificate worth $1 FRN at time of issue eventually will be worth $2 FRN, then $5 FRN, $20 FRN, etc. -- in the same way that a 1950 U.S. silver coin imprinted with the words 'one dollar' is now worth more than a $1 FRN. Norfed realizes that in these early days, the certificates are not likely to be accepted in exchange for goods and services, but as word spreads, it hopes merchants will come to accept the currency. In Canada, those with an eye to eligibility for registered retirement plans should check out the Millennium Bullion Fund, which is about to be approved by the Ontario Securities Commission.

I could take a look at the other articles in more detail. Usually, the journalist briefly mentions one of Griffin's books and arguments in relation to something else, but the journalist is not specifically writing about Griffin as the topic for the article. That said, one of Griffin's books was a best-seller, according to the Calgary Herald (Alberta). Do these few facts make him notable? As I said, I'm not really confident either way. For me, he's borderline at best. J Readings (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

If you wanted to create a new article which clearly showed notability using what you've found here (and the Who's Who mention below), I would not object to it. Just make sure the article has very clear citations showing the notability so it doesn't get deleted again. If you think you could do that, I would be fine with that. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I should also note that the article you quoted above seemed to be more about Norfed in general, and that it was inspired by Griffin, rather than about Griffin himself. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point. To be honest, I'm not really passionate about this gentleman, so I just wanted to offer some background information to what was out there in Lexis-Nexis. Journalists do briefly mention him and his work in relation to other things, but maybe that's what we should focus on: the citations could go in support of articles, for example, on NORFED? Just a thought, J Readings (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be great if you could use what you found as references for articles such as NORFED. They would work quite well for that. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

Why did you delete G. Edward Griffin Article? It was very clear it had been voted to Keep Can you explain?| Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. Edward Griffin (2nd nomination)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.236.214 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 23 February 2008

AfD is not a vote. For all I know, all the anonymous opinions were all one person (or 1-2 people), so anything they wrote was heavily discounted as far as weight when I closed it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

In my "keep" entry on the discussion page I provided verifiable and reliable evidence of Griffin's notability by refering to his appearance in Marquis "Who's Who in America 1994". As far as I can see, it is an independent source, and by posting the original text on my talk page, I showed that it backs a lot of the information given about Griffin in the wikipedia article. Given this piece of evidence, how do you justify the deletion of the article? FeelFreeToBe (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

As Kim wrote on your talk page, this information provides only a single reference, and Wikipedia requires multiple unrelated references. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:BIO, multiple unrelated references are NOT strictly required. However, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." The question is, is the entry in "Who's Who in America" substantial? And I think, in relation to the length and depth of the original wikipedia article on Griffin, it is sufficiently substantial. Of course, it depends on your personal view, there is no absolutely clear answer. By the way, "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves" (WP:SELFPUB). There are restrictions and probably the most important one in our case is "so long as the article is not based primarily on such sources." (WP:SELFPUB). It is evident, that this was not the case in the latest version of the article, but it is not clear to me that the "Who's Who" source should not be enough to sustain the article. I do not remember every detail of the article, but to me it looked like the "Who's Who" reference would support the general biographical information given, and further information about current activities of G. Edward Griffin would be represented by self-published sources. I think this would have been conform with Wikipedia standards. Correct me if I'm wrong about that.

Therefore, we are committed to follow the general advise given on WP:BIO concerning "Notability": "While it is not policy, editors are strongly advised to follow it. As the occasional exception may arise, it should be approached with common sense."

Do we have one of the predicted "occasional exeptions" in our case? In any case we should use common sense. First we should free ourselves from prejudices of any kind. I have noticed that the discussion on the "Articles for deletion" page was biassed - on both sides:

"deleters" revealed a certain amount of frustration because the lack of reliable sources had not been taken care of for a long time, some uttered dislike of "conspiracy theories/theorists", but more importantly: Some of their criticism has distracted from the true requirements for keeping the article. For example, I was not aware at the time, that I should have included the reference into the article right away. I acted under the impression of satisfying the "deleters" demand for evidence of notability during the discussion. I even thought it was not appropriate to just change the article before giving others a chance to discuss my suggestion.

"keepers" were biassed, because they liked the guy and what he stands for. A note by Griffin himself about his wikipedia article deletion process posted into the "Unfiltered News" section on the reality zone homepage ([2]) resulted in the creation of a number of new accounts in order to support the article, which finally culminated in the accusation of various members (including myself) of suckpuppetry ([3]). Before a bunch of people cry "meatpuppetry" accusations now, note the following:

• Griffin is absolutely right in making this public. Otherwise, chances would have been low, that anyone who actually knows a little bit about him would look at the WP article right when it is going to be deleted (Personally, I had looked at the article before, but would not have looked at it a second time without his message, and I hope you see, that I contribute independent, honest and constructive comments to the discussion).
• The "suckpuppetry" discussion shows that the "other" side is biassed as well, as they dishonored the Wikipedia guidelines about "checkuser request" by opening the requests for this case even though WP:RFCU permits it by calling "Vote fraud where the possible sockpuppet votes do not affect the outcome of the vote" an "unacceptable request".
• The guidelines given or refered to on the "Articles for deletion" page requested everyone to provide the honest reason for their knowledge that the deletion process was going on. Though most of the "keepers" (including myself) did not comply to this, NOT ONE of the "deleters" did either (I remember having seen this guideline, but I cannot find it any more right now, so this goes without reference).
• The discussion on the "Articles for deletion" page was stopped right when the first evidence of notability came on the table. Even though Kim soothes me by saying that this was indeed a valid reference, his last comment during the discussion (and the last comment of the discussion) was, that there was still no evidence for notability given. I am aware that the discussion was only meant to last 5 days, but this behavior does not show any interest in the actual constructive improvement of the article.

Back to the question of notability and whether we have an exceptional case. You already know my arguments that he had an entry in "Who's Who in America" and that Ron Paul acknowledged his book about the Fed to be a "superb analysis". Further, I think the mass of people who responded to his message about the deletion process by getting a WP account and posting something, is indeed proving notability, even though in a part of the population which doesn't publish anything about him or makes a movie about him. Note that they were not forced to support him, there is no way for him to find out who participated and who didn't. My last point is, that we might indeed have an exceptional case, because for somebody who appears to be a compelling conspiracy theorist I would actually expect a lower amount of main-stream notability. It is clear that anybody publishing something about him in his favour, would appear like a conspiracy theorist himself (which can easily threaten or destroy social or political success, I think some reasonable arguments for that can be found here: [4]). On the other hand, people who would like to debunk him (or attempt it), could find it unwise to draw too much attention on him, since appealing conspiracy theories have a potential to polarize and radicalize the public, whether they are true or not. If you disliked conspiracy theories, you would rather try to keep them silent and unnoticed, than to challenge a confrontation with apparent pieces of controversial evidence. Of course, in case there was some true part in them, some people would probably be very interested in silencing him. I am aware that WP:REDFLAG warns: "Be particularly careful when proponents of such claims say there is a conspiracy to silence them." But I do not claim this. I merely say that conspiracy theorists have a had time finding other notable people or authors who would openly advocate their claims, or debunkers who would risk to inflame a worried public. Both of this is especially true when the theory (or parts of it) are actually valid. This to decide lies not in the hands of Wikipedia editors. This is why the question of notability in this particular case is harder to solve than it appears to be at the first look.

Let me know if this argumentation doesn't make any sense. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 07:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The Who's Who entry was not even close to substantial, being only a short paragraph of statistics. While it could be used to verify some basic information, there is not enough in it to create an article or support one all by itself. Therefore, multiple, independent, and reliable sources would be required to establish notability. You are correct in that first-party sources can be used as references for an article, but they can not be used to establish notability. Notability can only be gained through reliable sources independent of the subject of the article.

The deletion notice itself indicates that you can change the article during the discussion. The only thing it says you can not do is remove the notice. If you didn't read the entire deletion notice, there's not much I can do about that. It was there for about 7 days.

As for all the sock/meat puppets, yes, it was fine for Griffin to let people know the article about him was up for deletion (as we don't really have control over that), but that doesn't mean we have to give all the raving fan opinions the same weight when it's obvious they were only there because someone "rallied the troops" to try to save the article. As I've already indicated, AfD is not a vote, so it wouldn't have mattered if 100 of his fans had come to gush over the article. It all boils down to the fact that there were not the reliable sources necessary to satisfy the verifiability and notability requirements. Even with all of the references provided on this page, I'm still not convinced the notability requirements are met. Only one of the articles above mentions him in any significant way, but that article is really about NorFed, with only slightly-more-than-passing mentions of Griffin. If you can't find anything in LexisNexis, then you'll be hard-pressed to find significant coverage on a topic such as this. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I am perfectly aware of all you say here, but I don't agree with your first two sentences. They reflect your personal opinion about what can be considered as "substantial". A valid argument would have been: In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article. See below for the aspect of "credibility". The use of "comprehensive" is not clear to me: I think that the appearance of a person's name in a list of nobel laureates on the last page of a general science book provides enough "notability" to justify an article about this person, containing the given basic information plus a link to the homepage of the scientist; whereas the appearance of a person's name in the telephone book does not. Please note that neither "credibility" nor "comprehensiveness" are wikipedia guidelines, but rather terms that contain a subjective component. Also note that "notability" is a guideline, NOT a policy. It is meant to guide the editors, but is required to be used with common sense, since exceptions may occur. I have elaborated on this in my previous post. I do not see that you have devalued my previous arguments with yours. Please check again. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 08:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Joe - just wanted to say I support your decision to delete. While I'd be mildly interested in a well-sourced, balanced article about such a fascinating character, this was not it. Nor am I convinced by FeelFreeToBe's assertions of unfamiliarity with Wikipedia. His/her familiarity with process and technical ability with wiki-markup suggest otherwise to me. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your observations (both of them). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I take this as a compliment. This is the difference between a naive new user and an intelligent one. I understand your scepticism and I cannot (and will not) prove the contrary. If you have a close look you will realize that I'm still in the process of learning the basics. Today, for example, I learned that it's good to divide a long post into shorter pieces (each of them signed), so that people can respond where claims are made. Note however, that I don't approve the technique to devalue someone's arguments by questioning his honesty, competence, or opinions. Whatever you were up to, these comments are unnecessary. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 08:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, being mentioned in Who's Who doesn't really mean much to begin with. --Calton | Talk 13:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Based on that, I'd say that Who's Who should not be considered a reliable source at all. Perhaps we out to include that somewhere in a policy or guideline. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to offend you in any way, but this suggestion of yours shows that you don't really understand what the wikipedia policies and guidelines are meant to be for. Maybe you just chose the wrong words. However, I think here is the right place to post it. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 08:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Calton, thank you very much for bringing forth this article. I agree that this diminishes trust in Who's Who as source. Indeed when I looked up Griffin's entries, I noticed that the thickness of the volumes more than doubled between 1991 and 1994. Griffin's name is in both of them, so that doesn't tell us much. I find it hard to decide whether this classifies "Who's Who" as unreliable source. Corruption is going on almost everywhere. For example, official information from the government is still regarded as being reliable information, although corruption within the government by individual politicians happens from time to time. The magnitude of corruption in "Who's Who" cannot easily be derived from the debunking article, since I wouldn't consider this one a reliable source either and since it want's to debunk "Who's Who", it is likely to exaggerate. My personal opinion is, that "Who's Who" is still a reliable mainstream source with reputation, since I found volumes up to the present in a university library. A single "investigative" article debunks it as a puddle of corruption as much as a single article makes 9/11 an inside job. But I posted it where it belongs, let's see what others think. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 08:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

At this point I like to thank everybody for this (in my mind) fruitful discussion. My current opinion on this matter is, that within the existing WP guidelines, the decision to delete the article in question was indeed justified - however, not by most of the arguments given earlier. I would still encourage everybody to use more common sense when considering guidelines. I still believe in my explanation that we might have an exceptional case here. I also believe that the deletion was NOT a necessary consequences of the guidelines. After all, every editor should be motivated by the goal to improve wikipedia, and not to hinder improvement by killing a discussion which just starts to get productive (no matter what the guidelines say). However, making a completely new article with taking special care to WP's requirements and the art of common sense is probably better now than to modify the old one. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 08:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Further, thanks to this illuminating discussion I realized some fundamental problems that WP appears to have. One is, that many editors respect guidelines more than policies or rather the principles behind the policies. The reason why this is a problem is, that terms like "reliable source", "credibility" and so on are used in an absolute way (in the guidelines), that is, either a source is reliable or not. The policies, however, show that this is not the case. It is naive to assume that sources can be classified as reliable or unreliable (a good example is the cloning scandal which affected the reputation of the top journal SCIENCE). People with scientific expertise will know that there is NO such thing like a consensus. There is NO such thing like a "reliable source" (for information other than pure definitions such as the name in your passport, or laws for a country). The only reliable source is nature, or more precisely: the scientific experiment. Once this experiment experiences its metamorphosis into written form (or any form of a medium), it becomes subject to biased representation, misinterpretation, and speculation. If WP editors fail to understand this very basic lesson of critical thinking, WP will NEVER become a credible source itself. It is my strong belief that the arguments used for the deletion of the article in question could be used to delete ANY ARBITRARY WP article, enough time and effort given. After having read some parts of the WP policies and guidelines, I begin to suspect that they might contain some general flaws about this. I noticed that some discussion about it is going on over there, so any further thoughts on this will be posted there where it belongs. Please do not call me a crackpot, conspiracy theorist or other. From now on I will only respond to VALID arguments (I don't claim that no argument has been valid). FeelFreeToBe (talk) 08:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

All, I am happy to discover this Griffin list and my own half-hour turned up an additional notable number of reliable sources. (Note that since there are multiple POVs about what are RS and N, my definition includes at least any third-party recognized newspaper with review standards; appearance in more than one suggests notability, but factoids with only one source may appear in an otherwise notable article.) Since recreation is locked, but I see that several folks would like a neutral and balanced article, could anyone direct me to the best place to start a draft, and when G. Edward Griffin would be available for reopening again? Thanks! John J. Bulten (talk) 17:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You can create the article at User:John J. Bulten/G. Edward Griffin. When you think it is meeting the required policies and guidelines, you can request another Deletion review. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ed Griffin's book has been featured (for some time now) on the front page of slashdot (look in the right column and scroll down to book reviews on the main page), so I find it odd that he's not notable enough to warrant a wikipedia article. This just makes wikipedia look bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.92.95 (talk) 21:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care what appears on slashdot as it's not a reliable source. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Rather than go through DRV, Joe, would you mind just assessing the current strength of from-scratch User:John J. Bulten/G. Edward Griffin (plus the slashdot review), and simply recreate the article (as well as redirect Edward Griffin to Ed Griffin)? Since I would need to discuss a DRV with you anyway, why not just let me know now if there is enough reliability now or not? I certainly hope this won't become another intractable cycle of "not notable enough yet, keep trying while I watch and delete" (which I have observed from others). John J. Bulten (talk) 22:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Good job on creating a good article. Hopefully it will stay that way. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

118.137.0.0/17

Thanks for the note. I'm wondering how you put those together. There doesn't seem to be any easy—or hard—wikimedia method of gathering even adjacent IPs together to look at contribution patterns, or anything. As far as I know, only the block operation works with CIDR specifications. Is there something else too? —EncMstr 01:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at the history of Sunrise (company) and noticed all kinds of 118.37.x.x IPs editing the page (and others, too). All of the IPs had very similar MOs, so I figured they were all the same individual using a dynamic IP. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks as well. I'd seen a lot of this in the last few weeks. I think it's the Indonesian phone company or something. Daniel Case (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what it looks like. I'll block them for longer if they continue after the week is up. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Okonomiyaki restaurants in the U.S.

For what it's worth, I've heard there are a few in the LA area, this one is apparently popular: [5] and at least one in New York [6]. Haven't tried either though. In addition, some izakaya places might do it. Dforest (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! (^_^) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ooperhoofd

I recently changed my name from User:Ooperhoofd to User:Tenmei. As a quick solution to intractable problems, this was ineffective -- but I wasn't expecting much. What I hoped for was that, like the changing of nengō, I might somehow usher in a new perspective ... and it has worked for me in ways I couldn't have foreseen.

In that context, I wrote favorably about you in the context of a question presented to the Chair of the Mediation Committee.

• User talk:WJBscribe#Deaf to good advice

It seems likely that I will be investing the time in a formal mediation process, but maybe not.

We'll see. --Tenmei (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. It's always an encouragement to know I may have helped someone. I hope things go well. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANIME Reference Library request

Hi Nihonjoe, I was hoping that you could, when you've got the time, look up Schodt's Dreamland Japan for any Sailor Moon-related information? I gather that at least pages 93-95 is about SM's marketing campaign, but can't get my hands on a copy to verify for myself. I'd be interested in anything and everything about Sailor Moon in the book, but if I was to whittle it down, any facts and figures about the marketing and toys, and any description of in-universe concepts (particularly of the Sailor Senshi) would be awesome. Thank you very much. -Malkinann (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to do it tomorrow or Friday. If you don't see me post here again by Saturday morning, remind me. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You can see the pages here and here (just right-click and save the links). Please let me know once you've grabbed them. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much - I didn't mean to leave it hanging for so long, but I've been having trouble with my net of late. Sorry if it's caused you grief. Some of it's familiar from what I understand already from other sources, but some of it's news to me. :) Is that all there is on Sailor Moon in the book? (Surely it's indexed or something...) -Malkinann (talk) 11:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That's the section that has SM info. Nothing else listed in the index, sorry. (^_^) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive Edit!

Ooops....sorry about that. Mekugi (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Carla Boudreau

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Carla Boudreau, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

G. Edward Griffin redux

Just an observation; that re-created article sure looks nice, but underneath the gloss, I still can't really see a single reliable 3rd-party source that asserts Griffin's notability. Black Kite 01:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

That should be discussed on the article talk page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The deletion was upheld at WP:DRV: if you want it recreated, take it back there. --Calton | Talk 16:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Nōbi Plain

I've noticed that you're adding the category "Visitors Attraction in..." to many pages. I don't see how the Nōbi Plain is a visitor attraction. I disagree with putting that category on some other pages, too, but it's possible that I'm just misunderstanding the category. It's seems to me that it should be used for tourist spots, not geographical features that have tourist spots. Douggers (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The category is for locations and items which might bring people to the area, whether as a tourist or otherwise. That's why the categories use "visitor" rather than "tourist". Perhaps we should create a separate category for landmarks (or something similar—"natural features" perhaps, to cover valleys, rivers, bays, and the like?) that aren't necessarily "attractions"? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Another category just for geographical features would be great. The articles for Nōbi Plain and Kiso Three Rivers would fit in those categories well. Douggers (talk) 12:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I would support a "Geography of x Prefecture" category. It would likely be a sub-category of "Visitor attractions in x Prefecture", in addition to other categories perhaps since rivers, mountains, lakes, and so on are definitely something that would attract people to an area. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with it being a subcategory. Yes, it's true that some geographical features are also attractions (allowing things to be cross-categorized), but not all geographical features are necessarily an attraction. Douggers (talk) 11:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's more that specific subcats or articles of "Geography..." would be also categorized under "Visitor..." ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

くぁ

Can くぁ represent both qa and qwa?Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 06:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, since you are reverting my changes to all the articles that say ==Representations in other writing systems==, I think ==Representations== is more appropriate because Representations already explains the section, is more succinct, and more accurately represents what the section is talking about. Since there is no talk page for all the individual kana, I hope you will put this up on the project page or whatever.Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 06:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

くぁ is not really used at all (except perhaps in very unusual giseigo), so there is no reason at all to have it listed. As for the section header, "Representations in other writing systems" is much more clear in meaning than "Representations". While being concise is good, it shouldn't be at the expense of clarity. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, currently there are only such representations. Maybe there are paintings that represent the kana. But that has not yet been listed. If that gets listed, then we can ===Writing systems===, but for now, ==Representations== is the most semantically appropriate name for the section.Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk)

I suggest bringing it up at WikiProject Japan. That way you can get more input before changing things. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Need more input

In December, I had found that Hatto (talk · contribs) had moved abingdon boys school to Abingdon Boys School(as well as the page on the self titled album, and a navigational template), and then edited the redirects such that they could not move them back. I can't remember how I came upon the pages, but I remembered that the name was not capitalized, and not given in katakana, on any materials about them. I moved them back, and made a note of it on his talk page, seeing as he had done this multiple times.

Last week (February 25), he had performed copy-paste moves to repeat these, citing WP:NC and WP:MOS-JA as reasons. I found them last night, undid everything, and warned him that if he repeated these actions, he would get blocked. Here is the current volley. I can't find anything in either policy that says the page on the band "abingdon boys school" should be located at "Abingdon Boys School" and since he repeated an action after I had warned him, yet he's citing policy, whether or not he should be blocked.

As someone who knows a bit more about WP:MOS-JP than I do, could you take a look into this?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You're correct in that MOS-JA doesn't specifically cover it. However, MOS-TM does cover it and indicates that the standard English capitalization rules should be used (see the example about thirtysomething). That said, I've seen some other articles that use all lowercase (though I can't think of any off the top of my head). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Category of visitor attractions in Hokkaido

Hi there. You have applied this category pretty broadly. I have to wonder if it makes sense. For example, Mount Kitatottabetsu is pretty remote. Would it really attract visitors? I do not think so. It is just a place on the map. Rather than applying the category wily-nily, it might make more sense to make it more restrictive. Not everything in Hokkaido can be considered worthy of attracting visitors. imars (talk) 08:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

People who like to hike especially like more remote locations. It would definitely qualify as a visitor attraction, though perhaps not for everyone. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nihonjoe. Look I understand you appreciate mountains. I appreciate mountains, too. If you look at the history of those articles where I removed the category, you will see that I created a fair number of them. (Not that I feel like I own the articles. They belong, of course, to everyone.) The point is, when is a mountain a visitor attraction? I was trying to create articles for all the mountains in the Hidaka range. Are all of them really worth visiting? I am not so sure. What makes a mountain worth visiting? Just because it is there? Are you going to add every lake, river, city, town, island, and bus stop in Hokkaido to the visitor attraction category? OK, you are going to add the category back. If you feel that strongly about it, I am not going to dispute it. I just think we should define some kind of criteria for what goes in this category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imars (talk • contribs) 14:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much that I appreciate mountains (though I do find them very beautiful in general), but there are millions of people worldwide who travel to places just to go hiking, camping, or whatever. Yes, people do go to hike specific mountains quite often. And yes, it's often just because it's there. People go to visit lakes, go to boat or fish on rivers, go to see a specific island, etc. No, I'm not going to add cities and towns to the list as it's generally something within the city or town which is attracting people, rather than the city or town itself. You're just getting carried away. You'll note that I also didn't add things like nuclear reactors to the category. I was very specific in what I placed in the categories. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

IP block

Why did you block my IP (118.137.53.215 )? I didn't do any vandalism in any Wikipedia articles. If yes, could you show me please. Thanks in advance :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paw 25694 (talk • contribs)

That IP range was soft-blocked due to a large amount of vandalism coming from it. It shouldn't affect you, however, as you are editing while logged in. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah OK thank you :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paw 25694 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for Karas information in NewType USA

Hi, Nihonjoe. I would like to request help from you in obtaining information on the animation Karas. I came to know the following two issues of NewType USA have articles pertaining to it. If you could put up scans (or text) of the relevant information, that would be great.

• Newtype USA, August 2004 (Volume 3 Number 8) — "Inside Tatsunoko Production" and any other relevant article within
• Newtype USA, October 2007 (Volume 6 Number 10) — "Karas: The Revelation" and any other relevant article within

Thank you very much! Jappalang (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I will look up the articles this weekend. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Nihonjoe. Might I ask if you had found the articles in the magazines? Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 03:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You can find them here and here. Please let me know when you've grabbed them. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have noted down the articles. If I can trouble you a bit more, what are their page numbers and authors (for the citation templates)? Jappalang (talk) 05:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

By "noted down" do you mean you have downloaded them? The page numbers are in the titles of the images. There were no authors given unless they are in the scans. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have downloaded them. "Doh!" from me for missing the page numbers. Thank you for all your troubles. Jappalang (talk) 05:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've removed them. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Kent Derricott

Why this revert on Kent Derricott without an explanation? I described the justifiable reason in the edit summary. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"References" is a perfectly acceptable title for that section, and it is used in tens of thousands of articles. As for the two column reference list, it does not look good with only four references. If there were 20 or more, then it would be fine, but with four, it looks horrible. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the reminder. I knew I was forgetting something. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:POINT warning

This is inappropriate. Please don't do it again. Thank you. Lara❤Love 18:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

BetacommandBot is doing stupid things (over and over and over, in this case), and it's already been handled. You're late to the party. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor characters in Tokyo Mew Mew

Why did you close this as speedy keep? The injunction does NOT block AfD nominations nor does it block the discussion, only the physical removal of the article. There is absolutely no reason not to allow the actual discussion, especially when the case is closing soon. Collectonian (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't like correcting admins, but you were WRONG in speedy closing this. Their was a warning template created specifically for AFD's affected by the ArCom ruling. Basically it says that articles with a Delete or Merge consensus will just be kept open (and continually re-listed) until this ridiculous injunction is lifted. So speedy closing by stating the ArCom injunction was incorrect and an error on your part. The AFD should be re-opened (either you do it or I will have it overturned). TJ Spyke 04:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your passion, but coming here and issuing threats is going to get you nowhere. Just wait until the injunction is lifted, and then relist it. It's not hard, and will keep discussions that can't be completed from clogging up the AfD system. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

But an admin should know how to follow rules and guidelines. Me manually opening the AFD back up would not ne any differently than you improperly closing it. The ArbCom injunction is NOT justification to speedy close an article and I will report it. TJ Spyke 17:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I know plenty well how to follow rules and guidelines. As I already stated, bringing up a TV character list article for deletion when you know that it can't be deleted due to an ArbCom inujunction is a waste of everyone's time. Feel free to report it if you think it's that almighty important, but it isn't going to make a difference, and you'll just be wasting even more time. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Gundam SEED

Looking at the character list for the Seed Series...how would you approach cleaning that up? Separating anime from manga characters possibly? I've been meaning to fix that since the start of the discussion about the Gundam articles. Mainly, I want to start with cleaning up the characters but whenever I see that article page, I take a step back to rethink what it's in store. Fox816 (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

118.137.0.0/16

Sorry if I have to put this up, but thanks for putting the rangeblock. He does seem to have the same MOs as Mr. User 61.5.*.*/61.94.*.* of putting misinformation, which I reported over three months ago, and put several rangeblocks by Ryulong. I was not even aware that this was happening because that user never even touched the Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch articles, whose edits by Mr. User 61.5.*.*/61.94.*.* started my expose three months ago and reported to WP:AN/I. I think that the user you rangeblocked is the very same person as Mr. User 61.5.*.*/61.94.*.*. Here's my reports to refresh your memory:

• Report 1
• Report 2

But anyway, thanks! - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 02:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

They may be related, but I'm not sure. Feel free to point Ryulong to this information. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this user has made a comeback, I just reverted a bunch of edits made from User talk:118.137.2.109 that fit this MO. -- Annie D (talk) 06:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the range for 6 months. Hopefully that's enough time to put a stop to this nonsense. They can still create an actual account if they wish, but they can not edit from the IP range. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

About the protection on Belldandy

The page, Belldandy was protected for almost 2 months now, and the talk page has not had any new comments by the opposing parties about the issue disputed. Would it be okay to unprotect it and see if things are settled? MythSearcher^talk 13:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your supportive comment on the article on Carla Boudreau marked for deletion. It is my first attempt to improve an existing article and I spent a lot of time researching and working on it only to see it marked for deletion.

Michael81753 (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Template:Non-free video game cover

I have nominated Template:Non-free video game cover (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Template:Non-free magazine

I have nominated Template:Non-free magazine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for information from Anime Interviews : The First Five Years of Animerica

I would like to request the Yasuhiro Imagawa interview found in pages 78-85 of The First Five Years of Animerica. I intend to start an Imagawa article (sometime in the future) and would like some references to back it up. Also, I'd really like more offline sources for Giant Robo (OVA) and hope there's some useful information in said interview.

Thank you--Nohansen (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You can grab the pages here: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. Please let me know once you've grabbed them. Thanks! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I got them. Thank you.--Nohansen (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. They are now removed from my server. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Utada Hikaru

If Hikaru is her given name, why does her article not exist at Hikaru Utada?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is an exception to the rule as she is much more well known as Utada Hikaru. At least that's the rationale which has been used in the past when people have discussed this issue. I'm not sure there should be an exception in this case, but... ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Trinity (Team Tejas)

As I wandered through the AfDs this afternoon, I found this item still left over from February. The merge is still pending to the Team Tejas article. DarkAudit (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to renominate it for deletion since the people working on the article obviously don't care about it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. The articles on the other characters are near-identical to that one, so they're in AfD now as well. DarkAudit (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)