Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Ley

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 on the balance of arguments presented. While it is conceivable that this individual is notable per our definition of notability, no compelling evidence was provided to support that, and blatant conflict of interest plus the involvement of numerous sockpuppets make it clear that even if the subject were notable, this is not the article we would have. Guy (Help!) 11:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barry Ley

Barry Ley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Possibly self-published, autobiographical, improper tone, non-notable living person, wild claims with unverifiable links. Unreliable sources and many failed verification. Loudenvier 15:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Excellent work Well written. Covering a serious, notable living person. The tone is studious and the claims thoroughly backed up in great detail. The links all check out, the sources are reliable and all of them pass verification. Well done DrParkes. I know that they have blocked you, but add me to your list of supporters. We will try to defend you while they won´t let you speak for yourself. Kentkent is right, you should try and get onto another computer and defy their bullying. Jamesthorburn 08:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please do. We are fighting alosing battle with the Loudenvier/Gelston/Nate/FlowWTG sockpuppet. (Or socketpuppet as they like to call it. They vandalise every valid contribution, even to a talk page! Kbenton 20:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Caution This AfD is being attacked by sockpuppets Loudenvier, Nate, FlowWTG, and Gelston. It is my firm belief that they are all sockpuppets and the same person. It might be a good idea if administrators were to take a closer look at those users. They (he) have been consistently disrupting the work of DrParkes aparantly because he dared to disagree with their (his) Judo based view of the origins of BJJ. They (he) managed to get DrParkes banned by stealthy misuse of the system. Now, during his absence, they (he) are attacking anyone who disagrees with them (him). They are even vandalising and disrupting this AfD nominiation. They consistently vandalise anything that does not fit their points of view. Regards, Jamesthorburn 16:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any proof that us four are sockpuppets? Or is it because we voted rgued for delete and don't agree with you? Look at my IP Address. You'll see its from Iraq. Look at Loudenvier's, I'm sure it hails from Brazil. Look at Flows, good chance its from Ohio. Your accusations of sockpuppetry are attacks on the creditability of others, and do not keep with the spirit of WP:Civility. You think Barry Ley deserves an article. We disagree. We aren't one in the same. Have a nice day. Gelston 20:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, sockpuppet, as I am sure you are aware, programs like HideMyIp will effectively change your IP address for you. But I'm sure I don't have to tell you that. Kbenton 20:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do, for a start the edit histories on the talk pages, the timing of edits and not least activity outside this (and related articles)--Nate 16:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like they are on to you, LOUNDENVIER/NATE/FLOWWTG/GELSTON. What are you going to do if you get caught out and banned? Surely by now you must realise you have gone too far. Decent people will not just stand around and let good work be undone. Sorry, but it had to end sometime. Kbenton 17:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this "No you are!!" line of thought: Nate, Gelston, and Loudenvier have been on here and editing for a long time in separate areas of wikipedia. All of you, on the other hand, joined within the same few days, edit exactly the same articles, speak exactly the same way, even down to CAPITALIZING NAMES. It's quite a tell. I don't think you're even taking this seriously anymore - please, just stop. FlowWTG 17:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you say FlowWTG, or should I say Nate? I'm sure you would like us all to go away. What a great world if everyone who did not share our point of view would just go away. There are some notable historic characters who would have agreed with that sentiment. Stalin, Mao tse tung and Hitler to name but a few. But look what happens when people stop trying to defy tyranny and sacrifice free speech. No. I think it best for humankind in general if we and everyone else who believes in the banned DrParkes keeps fighting to clear his name. We can not, must not allow the insidious hijacking of this noble institution to continue. Jamesthorburn 17:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Notability is in question & sources dubious or absent. At best merge with Blaggers a book authored by him.--Nate 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Do not delete Notability is proved beyond all doubt. Sources impeccable and always present when neccessary. Merging with the BLAGGERS article might be a good idea, if the Judo gang had not already hounded it off the project. Jamesthorburn 10:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Gelston, or anyone else for that matter. Do you really think that it is fair to remove other people's opinions from this discussion page? Clearly it is not. Try to act fairly please.

Stop posting gibberish on the AfD page, and follow the format instead of creating thousands of little subtopics everywhere. If you have a comment thats brand new, its generally to be posted on the bottom instead of randomly inside the project page.Gelston 17:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You stop posting gibberish. Also could you please refrain from changing other people´s input. That way we all get to have our say. A man´s work is at stake here. If he is not allowed to speak for himself, then at least all points of view should be heard. I think that if you examine your conscience, you will see that it is the fairest way. Kbenton 17:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. This article seems to be attracting a lot of attention. For my part, the links provide sound verification for its inclusion in Wikipedia. Ley seems to someone who stirs up a lot of passion, one way or the other, in several of the editors at least. And Google´s one and a half million listed pages about him certainlty suggest sufficient notability.

comment- not really, came across it as while looking the contributions of an unhelpful editor on another article. I generally try to keep any one I come across in a good state, wikify an add citation requests but these were repeatedly removed or bad sources added. Also if you google "Barry Ley", including the quotes it give 560, this looks for the exact phrase, I did a UK only search around 167 are based here if he is based in the UK these are the most likely to be relevant & getting few & far between esp as unless he's a member of "PLYMOUTH & DISTRICT CONSUMER GROUP" the first few are not about him.

Also I notice the only pages you have edited are the same as the banned User:DrParkes any relation?--Nate 16:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• CommentAs far as I can see, DrParkes is the victim of the bias and vandalism of a small clique of Judo fans. No relation, but as you guys have teamed up to get him banned while you sabotage his work, he needs all the support he can get. Kentkent 21:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If I search for "Felipe Machado" I receive 118.000 google hits. Should I start my autobiography on wikipedia? "Felipe Rocha" returns 30.600 hist. Loudenvier, my nickname, and used everywhere only by me, returns 911 hits. I think my nickname is more notable than Barry Ley in general. I would never write about Loudenvier on wikipedia though. Loudenvier 17:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Over a million hits for "Barry Ley" His book did indeed make it to No 1 on Amazon bestseller list albeit only for a short time and, as pointed out by another editor, about one and a half millionth place on the all time list. Out of nearly 100 million titles on their inventory since Amazon's inception. It seems positively vindictive that you should decry his work so, in the full knowledge that you have had him banned from replying. Are you afraid he will keep coming up with more proof for his claims, just as he was doing right up until the moment you managed to get him cut off?

I say good luck to him. I hope others will rally round this poor victim of malevolant vandalism. Keep your chin up DrParkes. There are plenty of us cheering for you. Kentkent 14:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Just took Londenier's idea another way, searched for my exact name (in just the UK) and came up with 89 hits of which 4 involved me & 2 were from the same site so optimistically that 0.5% extrapolated that means about 25 of the exact matches for Barry lee are about him...--Nate 17:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You really don't want to find it, do you? No wonder if you spell it wrong NATE. It is Barry LEY. Jamesthorburn 08:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This is a noteworthy subject. And it is unfair foreveryone EXCEPT DrParkes to have their say. There are plenty of sources citations and proof. More than any other article on Wikipedia it seems. The book is a bestseller and there are a huge number of other books with their own articles. Ley is a fascinating subject, well covered by the media. Unfortunately, DrParkes has committed the sin of telling the world about the true origins of BJJ in other articles. He obviously did not realise the political power of the Judo set in this organisation. Preech Jigoro Kano, or hold your tongue! Kentkent 19:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The Ley Guard is definitely now an accepted part of the sport. I agree with kentkent that we should keep this article. If you have long legs, the Ley Guard is a safe way to defend while setting up the triangle. While it looks precarious, it is in fact quite stable as long as you grip your ankle tightly. As this technique is now accepted into the mainstream, I think that its inventor deserves to stay on Wikipedia. And I also agree with kentkent that DrParkes does seem to be getting victimised for daring to challange the judo propaganda inherent in the articles on BJJ. Jamesthorburn 08:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The article is absolutely notable enough for Wikipedia. Kbenton 11:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Absolutely not notable enough for Wiki. --VS ^talk 11:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, NPOV.FlowWTG 16:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Definitely notable. Unbiased point of view. Plenty of verifiable 3rd party assertation of notability. Keep this excellent article. Steely eyed eagle hawk 08:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- no verifiable third-party assertion of notability. -- The Anome 16:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- WP:COI, WP:OR, WP:NN, all the usual suspects.Peter Rehse 05:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete-- Not notable. The best sources for him only have him appearing in a Blog, a Magazine, a recorded of him winning 3rd place in a competition? Besides, a google search of him only provides 569 hits, and for the most part they are for different Barry Leys or his book selling on E-Bay or Amazon. Gelston 07:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I cleaned up the afd a little, there were alot of unnecessary sections making it look really big and complex. Just H^{editor review} 17:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Socketpuppets If you want to persist in your ridiculous accusations, at least use the correct verbiage. I think you mean sockpuppet. You ought to know, you are one (or several, depending on which way you look at it) Kbenton 20:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment to closing admin. I have no opinion on this article and, in fact, have not even looked at it. However, of all the users who have edited this discussion, 2 have less than 50 edits (all of which are in this AFD or the Barry Ley article) and were created just a short while ago. These two users also happen to be the most ... I believe "obnoxious" is the most descriptive term. They are Kbenton (see edit history) and Jamesthorburn (see edit history). Despite having edited the article's talk page and this AFD multiple times, they seem to do so in rotation: first one edits for an hour, then the other, and so on. As "obvious, disruptive sock puppet(s)", I believe a block without checkuser would be appropriate, per WP:RCU, or some other form of warning/block. -- Black Falcon 23:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yet another face of the anti DrParkes "socket puppet" You are the obvious disruptive sockpuppet. You will try anything to keep DrParkes down. Well we will fight til the last to defend him. It is a sad day for Wikipedia, and indeed mankind in general when free speech is crushed in this awful manner. 80.58.205.35 06:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Black Falcon you have met your match. From now on I will be keeping a close eye on you. Any more sockpuppeteering and/or vandalism will be dealt with as and when it arises. I am happy to announce to the world that I too am here to defend the downtrodden DrParkes. Truth must always confront lies. In the words of Edmund Burke, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing," Steely eyed eagle hawk 08:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• comment User:Steely eyed eagle hawk seems to be another incarnation of DrParkes etc. (as is IP User:80.58.205.35--Nate 09:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Nate is almost certainly another head of the Nate/Loudenvier/Gelston/FlowWTG socckpuppet "Hydra" which is derailing this serious AdF discussion. Please stop now. Steely eyed eagle hawk 09:41, 20 March 2007 (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.