Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Nellis

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, discounting SPA's. Mangojuice^talk 03:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Nellis

Suspected vanity page. Person clearly not encyclopedic Vic sinclair 23:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I think we should keep this page as Andrew is a notable figure in Canadian labour politics as is also a well-known figure in internet circles. He has appeared many times on local television news as well as his name appearing in all the local newspapers. --69.196.150.118 03:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable Ottawa activist who has appeared on radio and television. See references. --01:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TruthbringerToronto (talk • contribs) .
• Delete - not encyclopedic, non-notable, definite vanity page Desertsky85451 02:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not encyclopedic, not internationally notable, sadly I cant see how it is worth including. MidgleyDJ 03:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Local activists unknown outside of local media are outside the scope of wikipedia. 132.58.234.102 07:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)the UK and know of him. As far as I'm aware Andrew Nellis has had nothing to do with the creation and editing of this entry, so it's difficult to call
• Keep - I'm in the UK and know of him. As far as I'm aware Andrew Nellis has had nothing to do with the creation and editing of this entry, so it's difficult to call it a "vanity page". If anything the article should be expanded. Kroppie 16:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I'm in New Mexico, and I am also aware of him through his media events and his activism. Just because a person falls outside the scope of your myopic field of vision doesn't make their wiki article a vanity article. Drvoke 03:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - It's not uncommon to have local urban activists on WikiPedia. It doesn't seem any less encyclopedic than stubs about streets, avenues, local politicians, and local urban transportation systems. Even Sam Sloan has a WikiPedia entry, and he's probably best known from Usenet's chess boards. Bolwerk 03:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Information - The users Kroppie, Drvoke and Bolwerk are regulars on the IRC channel mentioned in the article. I witnessed a call to "save" this article in that channel, a violation of Wikipedia's Meatpuppet policy. Furthermore, Kroppie and Drvoke appear to be single-purpose accounts to sway this debate. Vic sinclair 16:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This "Information" is completely irrelevant to whether the article merits deletion or not and appears to be little more than an unfounded attempt to vilify those in support of keeping the page. Kroppie 18:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Letting knowledgable people know that the article is up for deletion so that we can share our insights and improve the page(examine the edit history)and fully wiki-fy it does not count as "meat puppeting". Oh, and don't forget to mention your personal vendetta against Andrew, Bishop.. err.. I mean "Vic". And again, this is hardly a vanity page since it's about a newsworthy person and the subject of the article has had no hand in proposing or editing or even supporting the existence of the article. Drvoke 18:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep- Disclaimer I am a new user; In the short time I have been engaged in Wikipedia I have formed some ideas about what Wikipedia is and WP: NOT. If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia than the purpose is for research and if I was researching the Canadian labor politics, this article would be helpful, also argument for it not being a vanity page. The figure is notable enough where I could find information on him with a simple Google search to an independant site. I don't think international notability is required and as others in countries outside of Canada have heard of him I think that this article meets the qualifications. Personally I also have a "Why Not" feeling towards this article along the lines of the "Wikipedia is not running out of paper" argument. Ratherhaveaheart 17:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Totally non-notable. and unencyclopediac -- keep votes mostly puppets or close friends. The article is already tagged as having few or no links with relationships to the article. I don't even think this can be called "original research" because it's mostly vanity info like IRC usernames and blog links, weight, etc. Definite delete. Kultur 18:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • First I was wondering if you could state the reasons for saying the article is non-notable and unencyclopedia. Second while I appreciate your qualifying "mostly" I feel that your "accusations" of the keep votes being puppets or mere friend loyalty are offensive and irrelevant. The first time I heard of Andrew Nellis was in this context. I am neither a puppet or a close friend or any friend for that matter and I still see value in this article. Third your claim that it is "mostly" vanity info, I think is false, in that the majority of the page refers to Andrew Nellis's work in Canadian politics and the media's references to him. Ratherhaveaheart 20:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • User:Bolwerk, User:Drvoke and User:Kroppy are all members of a small internet community who have some hand in creating or maintining this page. Wikipedia becomes pointless as a resource when we flood it with vanity pages about ourselves and our friends. This page was mostly created by the subject's close friends, brothers User:Nikolaus_maack and User:Fmaack. It is very obviously vanity and non-notable. At the least, the page should be cleaned up to remove vanity subjects, like the entire "Personal Life" section. Kultur 20:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Perhaps I am being dense on this point, however I do not see how the identity of who created the article is relevant as to whether the article belongs on Wikipedia, I only edit or write articles on subjects that are interesting or important to me, if I knew someone who was notable I would certainly want to be involved in their article, I think this is the foundation of Wikipedia if people could only work on articles they were removed from no one would want to work on an article. I will concede that some material in the personal life section should be cleaned up. I still have not seen your argument for the article being non-notable.

Ratherhaveaheart 21:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Point taken. However, one can surely see, for instance, a biographical article written about someone by themselves is really autobiographical, and therefore NPOV. It is likely to include distortions or irrelevancies. The article's existence is at question, regardless of who it's written by, because it does not have any relevance in an encyclopedia. There are plenty of less important places on the web for people to post about each other. Wikipedia is not one of them. Kultur 05:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Jaggi Singh has a lengthly article on Wikipedia and his article is not being marked for deletion. I don't know how anarchist activists are rated but I don't think Jaggi is any or more important than PP is. Singh has gained attention because of his planned political actions and because of his protests. He has also been mentioned in the news and on television many times. The only difference I can think of is that Jaggi is in Montreal and Andrew is in Ottawa. Ottawa has a smaller activist community whereas Montreal has one of the largest in Canada.--69.196.150.118 23:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• 'Comment. Please remember WP:CIVIL, everyone. Local media are a perfectly valid source of information. The WP:BIO criterion "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." doesn't require that the publication be based in New York. Community activists can be quite influential. Not all politics takes place within a legislative chamber. Some takes place outside. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 20:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Bad Faith Delete - I'd just like to point out that I suspect kultur's delete vote has been done in bad faith. He runs one of the businesses in Ottawa that was affected by the Panhandler's Union civil actions. As far as "Personal Info" as Vanity is concerned, maybe kultur has no idea what the point of a biography is, and maybe he'll nominate some other AfD's for biographies that have Personal sections in them(all). Or, he could just help us fully wikify the page and try to be constructive. This is wikipedia, so instead of suggesting that something be done, maybe he ought to help? Drvoke 23:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

kultur lives in the US and not Ottawa, DrVoke. You'd know that if you paid more attention in #as (and #ps, before he was banned).69.194.35.109 02:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I do not live in Ottawa. I have never been to Ottawa. I do not run a business that has been affected by the Panhandler's Union. This is a totally absurd accusation, but par for the course, as this whole vanity page really amounts to nothing more than pollution and trolling on wikipedia. Do you believe that everyone who's voting to delete this unencyclopediac vanity article has some kind of financial stake? Kultur 05:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Anti-Hero strongly supports the endeavors of Andrew Nellis. Thinks he is an outstanding man. A man of high ideals.

Is that a valid reason? Wikipedia doesn't maintain articles as a sign of support of the subject's activities.

• Comment Keep or delete must be NPOV-based. The subject's beliefs are not important, but the relevance of the article is being questioned, and it appears that there is no relevance.

• Delete. Given that nothing links here, and half the article is filled with the mundane trivia of Andrew's likes and dislikes, it seems like a pointless page and a poor biography. I'd change my vote if the page became a relevant link from at least two other articles, and was cleaned up. 69.194.35.109 02:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Since this article contains very little information that does not violate WP:V or WP:NOR, 'cleaning up' would entail deleting the article, which is what has been proposed. Antivert 04:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• There is now a link to this article from the article on Jane Scharf. I hope to also link to this article from several others.--Fmaack 03:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

An A for effort, Fred, but you just shoehorned the reference into the article on Jane, by proxy of common affiliation with the IWW. That's not a relevant link. I'm sure a better connection can be made. Haven't they been arrested together or anything like that? "During a protest at the blahblahblah meeting, members of the local blah blah blah group, including Jane and fellow Ottawa activist and suspected ur-fascist Andrew "PoisonPen" Nellis, were hauled off by State-sanctioned stormtroopers for a severe talking-to." That sort of connection I'd consider a relevant link. 69.194.35.109 03:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

They are both members of the same branch of the IWW in the same city. I think that's a worth enough reason to link them. Andrew has never been arrested. Jane however has been arrested dozens of times and spent eight months in jail.--Fmaack 06:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't be so literal Fred, just rewrite the connection in a relevant form. The article on Jane isn't an article on other IWW members in Ottawa. 69.194.35.109 01:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Jane's page now mentions that she was present during the May Day protest which was also organized by Andrew. That's a good enough link between the two if any.--Fmaack 06:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - most of the content simply fails WP:V. BlueValour 21:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The page is not notable and does mainly comprise content that fails WP:V. Obvious vanity page with no encyclopaedic merit. Antivert 06:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Total vanity page with no encyclopediac value whatsoever. Does not belong on a medium as serious as this. Rmfii 01:15, 27 September 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.