Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasper Sadubin

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 of the debate was Speedy delete, as Jazzper seems to have accepted this is not yet ready for the encyclopaedia. Just zis Guy you know? 17:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jasper Sadubin

Non notable author —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.231.65.219 (talk • contribs) .

This is a real person who founded and writes for Doobi Inc. Publishing. Many of his works are referenced to on wikipedia!!! √αʑʑρεɾ 00:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, nn person. 1 Ghit, unrelated, same for his company (except no ghits). Jazzper added those references here. --Rory096(block) 00:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Bulshit. Many of those references have been there for over a month. I contribute to wikipedia using those papers which are entirely real!. And ghits from www.shore.nsw.edu.au are related. √αʑʑρεɾ 00:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a real person who founded and writes for Doobi Inc. Publishing. Many of his works are referenced to on wikipedia as shown below!!! Articles such as Admiralty House, Sydney and Theory of Portuguese discovery of Australia are completely based upon Jasper's works. √αʑʑρεɾ 00:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - Jazzper, are you Jasper Sadubin? Please don't take offence, I'm just wondering. I was originally going to mention when the nomination was malformed that you had added the references to sadubin to the articles, however, you did make significant contributions to those articles. - Hahnchen 00:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - I mean who are Doobi Publishing? They have zero net reference and User:Doobi18 makes the whole thing look dubious. - Hahnchen 00:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO and WP:V. Also seems to be WP:VANITY, as it mentions that "Jasper is also respected by many for his wisdom, generosity and valour." Perhaps userfy?--TBC??? ??? ??? 00:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:BIO and WP:VANITY. -- Wizardry Dragon 00:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, is myself. But does anyone want to see these works? They exist and can be emailed; put on commons... √αʑʑρεɾ 00:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

And i do think the ghits of me passing music exam as a kid are relevant ghits as i have done work on other musical things, and edited symphony, √αʑʑρεɾ 00:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - Posting self published works and citing them as references is probably in violation of WP:NOR. That's just my take. - Hahnchen 00:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity article. Brian G. Crawford 01:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, absent any verifiable references to the existence of Doobi Inc. Publishing or the works attributed to this author. Eron 01:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Not NOR violation, because my works in themselves are entirely referenced and do not put forth any points of view or theories not already put forth. Can you not read? I have all of the referenced works lying on this computer. I can email at request. √αʑʑρεɾ 01:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • In the absence of evidence to the contrary, delete as failing WP:BIO. The only Jasper Sadubin that Google knows about attended the Sydney Church of England Grammar School in North Sydney, Australia in 2003 and 2004 [1] [2], after having played football in the North Sidney Bears football club for children [3]. If we are talking about another Jasper Sadubin that is indeed a living and active researcher and publisher, the complete lack of web references seems hard to explain. Zocky | picture popups 01:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I can show the relevant material, give me an email adress. Plus, whoever said that the ghits are a different person? I think the fact that I have numerous edits on the Sydney Church of England Grammar School page would verify that. Oh, and someone might take the time to look at my userboxes... (Sydney Church of England Grammar School is also known as Shore) √αʑʑρεɾ 01:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment What I would be interested in seeing is not an emailed document or manuscript, but evidence from a disinterested third-party - say, Amazon, or a book reviewer, for example - that these books and their publisher exist. I could email you forty documents that I have written, but as they remain unpublished I can't go using them as references here. Eron 01:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned in the article that myself Doobi Inc. publish at a small scale, with a small circulation. How does it damage wikipedia to contain this article? √αʑʑρεɾ 01:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going now, but leave this be and you will all recieve Jazzters of the highest class. √αʑʑρεɾ 01:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment, bribing editors with barnstars won't help you to recieve more keep votes.--TBC??? ??? ??? 02:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Then I guess it is settled, the article stays. √αʑʑρεɾ 02:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment, how is it settled? There has only been one vote for keep, and that was your vote--TBC??? ??? ??? 02:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn and vanity. --Terence Ong 02:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Two things, firstly; what is nn? Secondly how is it vain? √αʑʑρεɾ 02:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

  • NN is shorthand for notable and WP:Vanity means it was largely written by its subject.
    • In this instance it means Non-Notable. SorryGuy 03:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy to User Jazzper's page as the content seems more appropriate there. As the subject doesn't appear to meet our biography guidelines it doesn't belong as an article. Capitalistroadster 03:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Lets take an example; 10 years ago day, someone writes an article about JK Rowling, a completely unimportant writer that has never been close to having anything published. Her biography, by the same criteria would have been deleted. There was no way to know that a certain author would not rise to become famous. Wouldn't it be nice for wikipedia to be the first source on the internet to reference to Jasper Sadubin? And econdly, what uncivil act have I done? √αʑʑρεɾ 04:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per above. Hope your ten year prediction is right. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 04:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - yes, User:Jazzper is this person, as came out of his conflict with at least one other editor. Said conflict made me truly wonder how far out of school editor/author is. Writings are about local places, so notability is so restricted. Shenme 04:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Bad rhetoric. JK Rowling's first publications were by a major company. A mimeograph in the basement or a laserjet printer does not meet encyclopedic standards. I know that's kind of harsh, but this argument is far too gone. Teke 06:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete completely non-notable vanity page. If Wikipedia existed ten years ago and JK Rowling had posted a vanity page before she gained fame, then yes, we would have deleted her page as well. --Roisterer 06:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, really no notability or substantive claim thereof. This whole situation looks doobious. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 06:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- tylerwillis | talk to me 06:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete a mere one mention on google. Quatloo 08:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine delete the page. Hope you're all on vacation when i re-create the article. √αʑʑρεɾ 06:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep; the article needs rewritten and reformatted, but if Jasper is a published academic, then the article has relevance. GilliamJF 07:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
The only problem is that he's not a published academic. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 09:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not only for the article itself, but Jazzper's behaviour on this page shows a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. -- Chuq 08:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Pure vanity page and not particuarly notable.--Cini 09:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per WP:VANITY. As most of the page is gloating on the subject being cited on Wikipedia, it also violates WP:SELF. Probably protect the page from recreation, per his most recent comment. If he becomes notable, well, we can recreate the page then, but we need pay no heed to this version. Refer Jazzper to WP:FAITH, WP:RS, and WP:NOT as well. Morgan Wick 09:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, the Hope you're all on vacation when i re-create the article remark was a joke. Derr. And secondly, I thought the fact that works are referenced to on wiki would 'add credibility. √αʑʑρεɾ 10:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, vanity. Also delete Doobi Inc. Publishing, for the same reason: it contains basically the same content, and is similarly unverifiable. — Haeleth Talk 10:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy, userfy, userfy. Obviously Jazzper attempted to enrich the wiki with his own work, unfamiliar with Wikipedia guidelines. Now of course the article cant stay (non-notable, and vanity, adding his own references to articles), but it can go to his userpage. Reading the guidelines, I'm sure that even Jazzper will agree that he is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia (compare, for example, that you are not included in the Brittanica either). Nonetheless, most editors start out with some addition such as this and I, for one, hope that Jazzper decides to stay and contribute to ther articles as well. And hopefully, a few literary prizes down the line, perhaps on his own bio as well ;-) Cheers, The Minister of War (Peace) 11:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Finally, I have another reasonable person who ASSUMES GOOD FAITH, unlike the rest of in this conversation; thankyou dearly Minister of War. I do actualy agree that this article is inappropriate. But are you saying that the references are invalid? That, is where you are wrong. The articles that I have significantly contributed to (and contain referances) are based upon other real' works of mine. Take Admiralty House, Sydney and Theory of Portuguese discovery of Australia, for instance. Both are completely based upon works of √αʑʑρεɾ/Jasper Sadubin. On wiki you are meant to reference where your material came from. That is where it cam from. CHEERS, √αʑʑρεɾ 11:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Then someone may need to look at those articles from the point of view of no original research, verifiability, and reliable sources. Your own self-published papers, which others can only obtain copies of directly from you, may not be the best references to use. If you have based these papers on other published sources, perhaps you should be citing those sources here instead. I'd also note that Admiralty House, Sydney lists eight references and Theory of Portuguese discovery of Australia lists six, so their reliance on your work may not be as complete as you suggest. Eron 12:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete non notable --Strothra 14:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable (84 results on Google). --Thorpe | talk 14:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Author requested deletion just above. We should also delprotect the page. --Rory096(block) 16:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete and protect. User already has a detailed user page, so userfication is not appropriate. bikeable (talk) 17:30, 23 April 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Jasper_Sadubin_a846.html"