Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stone Academy


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Stone Academy
I prodded this earlier with the reason "No sources, no claims of notability and I can't find anything (on google) to improve the article." It was contested with a message on Talk:Stone Academy (it's long so I won't post it here). Since I don't believe that a person's word is good enough as a source and the article still doesn't establish notability, I continue to believe that this should be deleted. - Bobet 17:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Bobet, you believe correctly - it should be deleted. Incidentally, that diatribe on the talk page doesn't help a bit. PJM 18:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:V, WP:ORG. I was going to recommend speedy, since there's not really an assertion of notability, but then I read the talk page. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 18:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless sources are provided to show verifiability and notability, you reactionary McCarthyite Orwellian warmongering totalitarian truth-suppressing corporatists. :)  Pan Dan 18:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No sources. No sign of verfiable notability. IrishGuy talk 23:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

one minor correction - it is reactionary McCarthyite Orwellian warmongering totalitarian truth-suppressing corporatist; so far as i know, this is all me (cinnamon colbert) If something is only available as oral history, why is a persons word not good enough ? this is a serious question that wiki needs to address; the idea that only things with printed sources deserve to be wikified is rediculous I have added info on notability; basically, communes were an important part of whatever it is that the "60s" were, and the New England communes are poorly docuemnted. the diatribe was, if anything, modest.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.137.141 (talk • contribs)


 * Why is one person's word not good enough? Because without sources there is no evidence that you aren't simply making it all up. IrishGuy talk 23:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * so how many people do you need if one is not good, is two ? three ? If I pay for a vanity book at a vanity publisher, does that make it real ? You are arguing from a paper ency pov; the right way to do this is flag as single person oral history...


 * Re: vanity publisher, you're right that that doesn't count for much, and there's already policy on that. See Wp:rs.  Pan Dan 13:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * (Cinnamon colbert, you misunderstood my stupid joke--not your fault. I intended to exaggerate your diatribe by jokingly calling myself and the others opining to delete--not you--"corporatists" and such.)  Pan Dan 23:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Cinnamon colbert 23:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC) OK, no problem (anon is me) see please Wikipedia problems


 * Comment: You've made a case that 1960s communes are notable in general, but you've said little about why this particular commune is itself notable, except as an example of the general phenomenon. I think a better project for you and other interested editors would be to add information about communes in general -- the Commune (intentional community) page at this point is little better than a disambiguation page. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 15:35, 12 October 2006 (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.