Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris krause

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 of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chris krause

Delete 18 year old American philosopher (has an s in his name) who apparently has re-established the Platonic school. Vanity. Bollocks. Prod removed without reason--Porturology 03:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as hilarious vanity by precocious teen. dbtfz^talk 03:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, although it's probably the funniest thing I've seen all day. Worthy of BJAODNing? Cantara 03:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 03:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete but maybe BJAODN because it's funny enough. dcandeto 03:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as blatant vanity, don't BJAODN it. Royboycrashfan 03:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Teenage vanity. Fan1967 03:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above -- Ritchy 04:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Firstly - I am not Krause - so this can't be considered vanity, perhaps blind admiration at best. Secondly you're all being very condescending and elitist. At no point does the article claim Mr. Krause has "re-established the Platonic school" or any other claims - if you actually read his work all he does is humble himself and does not even refer to himself as a philosopher but rather someone who is just repeating ancient wisdom. Mr. Krause makes no claims of accomplishing anything and all his works are dedicated to his teachers rather than himself, explaining to the reader that any thoughts must be attributed to them and them alone. Anyway, I wouldn't want this stub, which I was going to expand to include commentary on all his key points being in such a elitist environment so delete. Baalhammon 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• After reading the above, I'll rephrase my vote: Delete Non-notable philospher. Having a blog does not make you notable. Fan1967 04:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Although Mr. Krause is not published yet does not make his thoughts any less legitimate, nor does his age. Young people have accomplished great things in the past (See: Alexander the Great). Attack the ideas, not the character. I'd like to again stress that I have no personal affiliation to Mr. Krause. What makes a philosopher notable anyway? The common man wouldn't know the name Nietzsche and of course wouldn't know the name Wittgenstein - but these are giants of philosophy. By another logic, Socrates, Epictetus and other Greeks didn't write down or publish their philosophy, and we consider them classical, if not crucial. Although there is a link to a personal blog on Krause's site, there is also academic essays and a philosophical treatise on ethics. Baalhammon 04:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll respond to only one of your questions, as it's the only one that matters here: What makes a philosopher notable anyway? To put it simply, a notable person is one that many people have heard of. It is not Wikipedia's task to publicize unknown people, but rather document notable people. Krause is not prominent, he is not well-known. The specific guidelines that Wikipedia recommends are at Wikipedia:Notability (people). Fan1967 05:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above Bucketsofg 04:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, it'd be mean to BJAODN . — Adrian Lamo ·· 05:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. Sandstein 05:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; does not meet WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity bio. --Terence Ong 11:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as embarassing vanity. In any case, "Blind admiration" is as bad a reason to write articles as vanity. Nowhere near as BJAODN worthy as the Bassil Mikdadi vanity/hoax. Deizio 12:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn bio -- Alpha269 14:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN, vanity. -- Rynne 18:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per well argued nomination. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep to be contrarian. I would like to perform an experiment of the contrary method of discouraging vanity articles: keeping them, locking their content so that the author can't delete them, and publicizing them so widely that the author is embarrassed into never ever doing it again. I doubt that will happen here, but it's worth a try. Reading the article was worth enough of a laugh to warrant something silly here. (note: experiment not proposed policy change for WP as a whole, at least not until test results are in...). Georgewilliamherbert 07:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Now that's cruel. Just goes to show that we will be doing the kind, compassionate thing by deleting this article.  : ) dbtfz^talk 07:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Besides being cruel, doesn't a contrarian "keep" vote violate WP:POINT (State your point; don't prove it experimentally)? - Rynne 23:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Not really, editors are free to vote and give rationales however they choose, for whatever reason. Votes like this simply won't be considered in the final tally. Nothing has really been done here - creating, nominating (or encouraging others to do so) or otherwise making significant erroneous changes to pages to make a point (aka disrupting wikipedia) are frowned upon. The tone of this opinion above makes it clear it's a bit of fun and I doubt anybody, least of all Georgewilliamherbert, seriously expects it to take off. Embarassing vanity posters is sometimes essential but you do have to remember WP:BITE and WP:AGF Deizio 01:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • That's reasonable, thank you for the clarification. - Rynne 05:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete With luck, in five to ten years, he will be eminently worthy to place in Wikipedia. Just not today.Pat Payne 23:06, 9 March 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.