Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aajonus Vonderplanitz (second nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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. Nandesuka 16:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aajonus Vonderplanitz

Previously kept by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aajonus Vonderplanitz on the gournds of his being a published author. Publication details list all his books as published by Carnelian Bay Castle Press. A Google search for the publisher returns 39 hits, all of which are for Vonderplanitz' books. The company appears to have no website and operates out of a PO box in Santa Monica. Which leaves us with what looks very much liek a self-published author who once appeared as a featured nutter on Ripley's Believe It Or Not, which single appearance does not, in my book, amount to notability per WP:BIO. Just zis Guy you know? 20:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Note: Same person who requested first deletion. --DJCupples 13:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Powers 21:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Authoring a book is no guarantee of encyclopedic notability. And this is an obscure self-published author Bwithh 00:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Aajonus is not self-published and self-published is the main arguement made for asking to be deleted. And there is 324 hits on google, not 39. Go to this link http://www.buildfreedom.com/dietanc.htm a reprint of an article from "Whole Life Times" stating that a friend of his published book. --DJCupples 05:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Note: user's two previous edits were to the article under discussion and to the first deletion discussion. Powers 13:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It's now up to 41 [1] but definitely not 324; Carnelian Press gets two, only one in English. I can't find any evidence of anyone else published by the same press, and one of the books is listed on Amazon as plastic comb binding. This does not look like a real publisher; the distinction between self-publsihed and published by a friend is probably not a significant one as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Just zis Guy you know? 13:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Does the WP:BIO require that a publisher have published more than one author in order to be a legitimate independent publisher of author with bio on Wiki? Is a book less significant because it is spiral bound (plastic comb)? Amazon list 5537 books with plastic comb [2] of which 2690 are new [3].Amazon list 75685 spiral-bound books [4]. The argument that one of the books has different binding is weak. So friends completing a business transaction means it not a legitimate business deal? The test for self publishing is whether the author paid for publishing or not. Here is the name of the person claiming to be the publisher [5] and here is a current link where you can contact him (also author's publicity contact)[6] and find out if he was the one who took the financial risk of the publishing the book or the author.DJCupples 09:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Essentially there is no difference between a book published by a friend who has published nothing else of any significance, and a self-published book. Very few self-published books are notable, if you look at Robert Gunther you will see that we note his books are self-published but his notability does not rest on his books; if it did we would probably not have an article on him either. Just zis Guy you know? 11:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a topic of significant general interest relating to raw paleolithic diets (raw vegetable and animal foods diets). The information is important to those researching these types of diets. --Martha at Earthaven 11:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Note: user's first edit. Powers 13:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Sandstein 16:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please the article is about the person not the publisher and this one gets 23500 hits [7] that looks notable to me Yuckfoo 20:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • delete fails WP:BIO ... sorry he should go.  ALKIVAR™ 02:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This article is about a person who has c.25,000 hits on Google, and there appear to be several Internet groups on Yahoo and elsewhere following his "Primal Diet". If Wikipedia can have wiki articles on vegan diet gurus and the like, then I see no reason why this guy shouldn't have one too. Everyone should be covered. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Loki0115 (talk • contribs).
  • Loki0115 (talk • contribs) has no contributions outside of this AfD
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Apparently self-published (or by a publisher with no other authors, anyway), which makes his author credentials doubtful. However, he seems to get a lot of attention around the web from a lot of different people. Seems to meet the notability guidelines based on that. Fan-1967 01:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry highly suggest vanity. --Nlu (talk) 06:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — mboverload@ 08:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus 12:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep He certainly has made a widely recognized contribution to his particular field: he founded what might be the most radical diet in the western world. His books (whoever publishes them) are clearly being reviewed by independent groups and people. Even [[9]], a permaculture resort in hawaii, lives entirely on his Primal Diet. I know that's not listed as a criterion for notability but it should count for something. The number of pages returned in a simple google search of him, as well as the nature of those hits (many being interviews and book reviews) suggests that he is not too "obscure" for wikipedia. Whether he is a "nutter" or not really doesn't affect notability. [Applewhite] has a page. He's a "nutter". Aajonus Vonderplanitz, or his supporters, are not invading wikipedia to try to gain exposure. His article should remain because it's easy to imagine a scenario in which someone would hear of him and then look him up on wikipedia to learn more about him. Robert O'Brien 23:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • robertobrien (talk • contribs) has no contributions outside of this AfD
  • In fact I have edited wikipedia several times without registering for a username and have been using wikipedia regularly for awhile. Furthermore, it should be about the strength of my argument, not the extent of my contributions Robert O'Brien
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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Aajonus_Vonderplanitz_%28second_nomination%29_e316.html"