User talk:Autoscript

Welcome!

Hello, Autoscript, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like The Listowell Ripper, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! RadioFan (talk) 14:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Listowell Ripper

The article The Listowell Ripper has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

not clear how this is notable, lacks 3rd party references.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RadioFan (talk) 14:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep and Move to Almede Chattelle. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Listowel Ripper

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I was actually about to click save for my PROD until I noticed User:RadioFan executed the same in September 2009, almost instantly after this was started, and as mentioned with my PROD comment "Aside from some links at Books, News and browsers, this actually questionable whether it ever actually happened as it may simply be folklore legend (even likely based from Jack the Ripper) therefore, all in all, I simply see no better notability (especially for an independent article) and improvement here.", I actually question whether this actually happened as it may have simply been based from Jack the Ripper. SwisterTwister talk 08:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think that if this is kept, it should be under a different title. I'm not entirely seeing coverage under this specific term. There's some coverage for the murder and references to Jack the Ripper, but not really any RS referring to it by this specific term. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 09:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 09:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Almede Chattelle. The sourcing out there for this is fairly slim, but I've found enough to where the article should pass notability guidelines. What mostly influenced my decision was specifically this book, where the author talks about some of the coverage the trial received during its day. Apparently it received quite a bit of controversy, which makes the lack of coverage mildly surprising. I say mildly, because it's not unheard of for coverage from this time period to simply disappear from the public eye because it's not available on the Internet. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found one of the news stories - apparently it was front page news. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think I'd argue for moving the article with a redirect. There are some hits under the term "Listowel Ripper" but they're all in forums and various unusable terms. I think that this title actually stems from the segment on the Creepy Canada show, which was labeled "Listowel Ripper". I'm hesitant somewhat to create a redirect based entirely on the name of an episode, although I suppose redirects are cheap. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tried finding something on the inspector named in the original version of the article. I can't find anything about this person at all and Murray's account mentions no one by the name of Smire, making me wonder if he was just an invention of the show. If he did exist, apparently he wasn't covered in any of the existent RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move, following improvements to article by User:Tokyogirl79 and her recommendation here. PWilkinson (talk) 12:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move. I am wondering if the article should be named after the event (i.e. Murder of Jessie Keith), but the coverage does seem to focus on the perp. - Location (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Nomination of Baron Victor von Frankenstein for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Baron Victor von Frankenstein is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron Victor von Frankenstein until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. 💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 13:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]