Talk:Andrew Villeneuve

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

It sincerely bothers that me that RadicalSubversiv has launched a campaign to have my Wikipedia biography (which I did not even start - so therefore somebody obviously considers me to be of some importance) deleted from the encyclopedia.

I will continue to be active as an activist, and I think the case for deleting this article, even if it isn't very long, is weak in itself. The solution to a stub is to expand it, not delete it.

Seanorthwest

Calm down. It's not a campaign, it's just a VfD listing. And I'm in no way implying that your activism isn't important (in fact, I rather admire it). I'm merely sayinig that you are not personally notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia, a characteristic you share with most of the population, including myself. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, especially the sections on "biographical dictionary entries", "advertising and self-promotion", and "primary research". RadicalSubversiv E 05:08, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Radicalsubversiv is constantly tell others to calm down after initiating personal attacks and testosterone driven aggression against others. I'm sorry he's picked you as his next victim.

I don't admire your activism at all, Sir, however I defend to the death your right to do it. The group you are an activist within is subject to the longest imaginable treatment. Seems to me if that's justified in staying then so is the bio article on you. I guess it's important you don't add to it, so I'll jump on Google and see what I can find.

"I'm merely sayinig(sic) that you are not personally notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia..." Jeez. I'm sorry you are subjected to this and hope you take some comfort in knowing that:

  • What you do matters to you and that's what matters
  • Radicalsubversiv has a pattern of abusing others
  • There is a process to neutrally evaluate deletion proposals and there'll be at least one person defending the article in accordance with Wikipedia's rules

Libertas

PS Even the most preliminary research indicates that Andrew Villeneuve is not only an activist but has made a significant contribution to the history of Washington state. I don't agree with what he did at all but stopping the installation of 18000 slot machines strikes me as quite significant, as they would have financed significant tax cuts, and from the opposing view saved the state from the negative impact of gambling.

Deleting the article is clearly the wrong thing to do. Libertas

[edit] Disputed accuracy/NPOV

Libertas, upset with me for other reasons and determined to defeat this VfD listing, has now turned this article into something of a joke. Without adding any sources, he has turned Villeneuve into a huge force in Washington state politics and the arch nemesis of Tim Eyman. Neither even begins to approach accuracy or neutrality. RadicalSubversiv E 01:14, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Radical, upset with Villeneuve due to byzantine tensions within the extreme left has proposed the deletion of this page. He has not structured his complaint within Wikipedia guidelines, inventing a new category of not being "notable."

This is a personal attack, patently false, for which Libertas has provided no credible evidence. And if he doesn't believe non-notability is grounds for deleting an article, he needs to follow VFD more closely. RadicalSubversiv E 02:26, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The deletion proposal is spurious and erroneous.

Respected editors on the deletion page said the article needed to be improved with evidence of his prominence or otherwise. So that's what I did, although it took longer than I thought. The paragraph on Veilleneuve's prominence in the press is entirely sourced, as is his opinion piece in the Seattle Post Intelligencer. What isn't sourced?

The prominence Villeneuve has achieved is plain as day. It was only my inadequacies as a researcher that delayed this truth being asserted clearly. For that I am sorry.

I make my position very clear. From what I've read Villeneuve has been part of defeating valuable initiatives that would have attracted tourists, investment and employment to Washington. I don't like what he's doing at all and find his vicious attacks on Tim Eyman both tiresome and vindictive. But he's a well known activist, with his own prominent liberal organizations. These tax initiatives won't be going away, and I think we will see Villeneuve rise to an even greater leadership role going forward. Libertas

Now my biography is not only a candidate for deletion, but its accuracy and neutrality are also being disputed.

If I am not a notable person, why did someone else start this article? I'm not here to make the argument that I am a notable person - that would be self promotion. Other users are free to debate this. But somebody else thought there should be an article about me.

Seanorthwest

Exactly Seanorthwest, you are notable and the huffing and puffing coming from the envious Radicalsubversiv changes nothing. I would welcome your input (perhaps here) of some basic biographical data and I will incorporate it. I think it is extremely clear that you have made a notable contribution to public life in Washington state and only the foulest of motivations could lead someon to say otherwise. Libertas

More unjustified personal attacks -- I have no foul motivations. I agree that you (Andrew) have made some important contributions to Washington politics, which you've done a good job of covering at Tim Eyman and Permanent Defense. That's a separate question from whether you are personally notable enough to merit an encylcopedia article. As it stands, it looks like the VfD is going to fail, so the whole matter is probably moot. RadicalSubversiv E 04:02, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Let freedom ring! Libertas

Comment: This kind of gloating is inappropriate and serves to inflame discussions, not to inform them. When deciding the VfD discussion thread, this and similar comments led me to discount much of your opinion. The article was ultimately kept but it was in spite of your comments, not because of them. Rossami (talk) 04:01, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] from VfD

On 2 Jan 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Andrew Villeneuve for a record of the discussion.