Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Risto Rekola


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  MBisanz  talk 16:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Risto Rekola

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Apparent self-promotion by a non-notable author. My search for English-language sources found nothing, and a search by for Finnish sources found nothing that could contribute to notability. ʍw 02:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ʍw 02:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. My comment from my talk page for convenience here – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nominator. Meatsgains (talk) 04:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep the two ebooks include 15 000 palindromes in many languages sorted by subject and alphabetically. Tell me where to find better ones! The books are still most popular in eKirjasto (linguistics and poetry). They are available in normal form, too. Since June the sites are visited nearly 3000 times, so the palindrome fans seem to be interested. When I wrote the first time to the Palindrome article in June the number of daily readers rose from usual level of 1500 to 5500. I know palindromes are not so popular as football, but people have the right to read about them. Risto hot sir (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC) — Risto hot sir (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. If the article would be deleted, the English Wikipedia readers miss the opportunity to get information of the only (as far as I know) palindrome book for children and can't listen to double palindromes (palindromes both written and spoken) on video. --Risto hot sir (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC) And the normal sources are not reliable in this case, because the best knowledge of palindromes is found in Finland (it's possible to create more than 100 000 palindromes in Finnish). They don't translate. The most English palindromes include writing errors developed under French influence (while Latin was and is much more phonemic). "Aivot avaavat ovia" ("brains open doors")! Risto hot sir (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. ʍw 19:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 21:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Alivaltiosihteeri (and it's members Simo Frangen and Pasi Heikura) have been evaluated as notable. They write only in Finnish. The external links don't work. It's easy to find information of ebooks (what's not the case with printed ones). Rekola's ebooks are over ten times more popular in eKirjasto (library)than Alivaltiosihteeri's only one Joukossa virallisuus tiivistyy (2011). The selling in Ellibs is at the same level. Compare the page view statistics! In my opinion notability means that people are interested. Risto hot sir (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, notability has a very specific meaning:
 * "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable"
 * There is an additional notability guideline for authors. It has little to do with what's "popular". Nor does it matter whose writing is "better", or what language it's in. Also, at no point was Alivaltiosihteeri "evaluated as notable". The English Wikipedia has over 5 million articles and is maintained entirely by volunteers, so you might find a number of articles that have yet to be "evaluated"; the existence of other substandard articles is not a reason to keep this one. You should familiarize yourself with the guidelines I've linked if you hope to make a persuasive argument. (Oh, and the "page view statistics" were very low before this AfD was started, not that it matters for this discussion).
 * ʍw 14:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Only Khlebnikov's page view statistics is higher (of the notable palindromists within 90 days). And 40% of the votes are poorly argumented - Colosseum-stylish. Risto hot sir (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, the page view stats have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether this article should be kept. An administrator will asses the arguments and weigh them accordingly before closing. ʍw 16:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm now really worried: it seems that in English Wikipedia there are a lot of articles which haven't been evaluated for years (and the links lead to nowhere). Try to write something unproper to Swedish Wiki (over three million articles for 11 million people) and You will see the text disappear in minutes. How is this possible? But for deleting this article You're doing hard work. Is this because I've made clear that English writing is full of exceptions (the palindromes show this especially well). How do You teach robots to write English in the future? It will be very expensive! The Englishmen love traditions, I guess, but even the Royal Family changed name during World War I: Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha (what could be a more German name?) to Windsor (for phonemic reasons perhaps?). Risto hot sir (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep There is a strong argument here to keep. Also, i have previously heard of wikipedia article links becoming invalid when translated. Can someone take a further look into that? 80.249.56.149 (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please restate the "strong argument" here, and link the relevant guidelines. ʍw 17:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Finnusertop should check the Estonian article where many Finnish palindromes about Estonia, Finland's "little brother" are presented. Are they notable? The Estonians seem to like them (at the moment more page views than on English side, and the population is only one million). Risto hot sir (talk) 09:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I don't know why chose to re-list the Afd previously when the article should have been deleted, per consensus obvious before the previous re-list. But absent any detailing by him, I am re-listing this again on the basis that MBisanz might have had some significant reasoning. Lourdes 11:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes  11:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.