Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Wice

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Graham 09:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Wice

Nice try, but not notable, yet. Graham 11:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. "He is a leading researcher* in the field of social theory ... *Alex is not a leading researcher in the sense that he has an established affiliation with a university, or has done ground-breaking work in academia with respect to social theory." Says it all. Collabi 11:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Born in 1988" indeed. David | Talk 11:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I have to admit he's pretty well-spoken though. Maybe he will be a notable researcher one day. 11:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Believe me 17 year olds are not leading researchers. You actually need to do the hard yards and publish a body of work over several years. What are his publications?--Porturology 12:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• SPEEDY DELETE

fourth edit:

I just finished talking to him and he told me to get it off the net ASAP, and that he didn't want to be known for his affiliation to socTH. Please delete this.

I am the author of the article; I don't think this should be deleted, for a couple of reasons.

(1) I am not Alex Wice, which already says alot.

(2) People in the community want to know who he is.

(3) He is easily one of the top 5 people that has contributed to the field, and IMO in the top 2.

(4) People may be unaware that he has written x,y,z articles (the articles that he has written, not literally "x" article, duh) or cannot match his psuedonym to his real life name.

(5) He has very strong, 'professional' (as in, related by work) to notable people, such as "Mystery" (Erik von Markovik), and "TylerDurden" (Owen Cook). To give you a sense of how they are notable, "Mystery" claims that he is the best pickup artist in the world, and backs up this claim with open challenges as well as thousands of testimonials that validate that he is infact the best seduction teacher on the planet. That means that this person is #1 at something, by affiliation the person that is close with someone who is #1 is also notable (not in whole because of their closeness, but in part.)

In response to "Collabi"'s vote for deletion : if you read the page, I provide a note which explains how internet-research is just as notable as "real" research (research affiliated with a university.) The reason is that there are alot of nonstandard ideas that are logically valid but are discarded in a 'professional' setting, and also that people that work in this field really need to have a different set of beliefs (an 'open mind' ?) that lets them explore.

In response to "Dbiv"'s vote for deletion : if you look at the entry "Macky" in wikipedia, you will see that this is a biography of someone born in 1990, who is notable. The age doesn't matter.

edit: I forgot to sign. Here is my signature. 70.24.247.156 12:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

second edit:

From Wikipedia:Importance;

  1. there is clear proof that a reasonable number of people (eg. more than 500 people worldwide) are 
     or were concurrently interested in the subject.

you only have to use google for 'pickup' or goto bristollair.com to see how many people are interested in pickup articles; then it is quite easy to find his handle (psuedonym), which by then you will figure out that many people have read his articles, which is evidenced by the hit counter at the bottom of the page in just one of the many places that hold copies of his writing.

so stop saying "nn" : easily more than 1000 people has read some form of his work and many are interested to find more about his work, and possibly in the future where they can find his work / more of his work.

another thing is that his presence in the dictionary may provoke him to come out of hiding and start writing for the general public again.

ps. for the record this is still the same vote even though my signature appears above this.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Attempting to convince someone to come out of hiding is not something an encyclopedia should do – we report verifiable facts here, we don't engage in soapboxing. (Well, at least we try not to.) android79 13:51, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. nn. Nice try, though. ManoaChild 11:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, teenage vanity, unverifiable. If he truly is a prodigy, he'll produce some peer-reviewed research in the future, at which time an article can be written about him. As it stands now, this is completely unencyclopedic. android79 13:51, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Have to agree with above, at 17 he's no leading researcher. --Marcus22 14:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, as per the author of this page, see above. Also, on second thoughts, this page meets the criteria set out at deletion of vanity articles. Graham 04:19, 12 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.