Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Carmichael

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. W.marsh 03:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colin Carmichael

Non-notable. Google search for "Colin Carmichael" results in several Colin Carmichaels, none of whom seems to be the one referenced in this article. Google search for "'Colin Carmichael' Japan" still gives nothing that seems to be related to this Colin Carmichael. Hbackman 04:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

*Keep. He is notable in Kitakyushu which is where I happen to live. A local character and an important one in the foreign community I would say. By the way I started the article. The fact that there are other Colin Carmichaels in the world would suggest the need for a disambiguation page at some point in the future rather than outright deletion. --Historian 05:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC) withdrawn, deleted by --Historian 15:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Fail to see the notability of a bar owner. Dr Debug (Talk) 05:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• Dear Dr. Debug, I have tried to explain in the article that he is not just any old bar owner, but anyway let's see what other people say. Kind regards,--Historian 05:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Information presented does not seem to make him Wiki-worthy. --Kinu 06:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I am sure his bar is a good place in Kitakyushu but the article doesn't seem verifiable and I don't think he meets WP:BIO, our biographical guidelines. Capitalistroadster 09:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable bar owner.Obina 12:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• I have now added a photo of Colin and changed the emphasis of the article to state that he is first and foremost the founder of a soccer team, and by the way runs a bar. I hope this may be more acceptable to wikipedians. --Historian 07:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • See, that action actually convinces me that he's NOT qualified for an article: if he's qualified for an article, the reasons are apparent: starting from the conclusion (he gets an article) and working to come up with a rationale for it is backwards. --Calton | Talk 05:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Above two comments deleted by User:Historian and restored User:Calton

• I thought he deserved an article so I started one. Are you saying there is something wrong with that? How do most articles get started on wikipedia? And is it somehow improper to modify the emphasis of an article after it has been started? --Historian 23:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• I thought he deserved an article so I started one. Right. That was your goal, and by your comments you've been searching for a rationalization for that conclusion. As I said precisely, backwards. Also, deleting the above comments leads me to question your sincerity. --Calton | Talk 01:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• OK, the reason I deleted my comment was that I wished to withdraw it. Then your comment would have been meaningless on its own, so I deleted that as well. You then reinstated the comments, which I really don't mind about. And if you are going to talk about a lack of sincerity, why do you persist in calling me Colin when I have already told you I am not he? --Historian 02:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Because it's rare to see this level of ego-tripping on behalf of others. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, so it must be...
• 'ego' means I (Latin) or "the self". It is therefore impossible to ego-trip on behalf of others. --Historian 11:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• In any case, if you're withdrawing comments, you strike them through, not hide them.
• And speaking of comments you're running away from, you still haven't explained the meaning of your comment on the CfD page, So far there is indeed only entry, but many more will follow in good time, and we all know where you live. Tokyo!! Take care and Best Wishes. Care to enlighten me? --Calton | Talk 07:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• It was meant as a joke. Sorry you didn't take it that way. And thanks for showing me how to strike out comments, that will be useful to me in future. --Historian 07:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I still can't see any notability. It doesn't help that the team he created doesn't seem to have warranted a page of its own yet. If there was one, I'd suggest redirecting this article there. —Whouk (talk) 10:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Thank you for your suggestion. I am a member of the Xelha football team. Sorry we haven't got round to that yet - and who is to say that such a page would not also get hit with a VfD before it gets anywhere? And for that matter Xelha which I believe is a place in Mexico still hasn't got a page. So much to do, so little time! --Historian 10:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • who is to say that such a page would not also get hit with a VfD before it gets anywhere? Probably for very good reason. --Calton | Talk 05:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC) The above two comments deleted by Historian and restored by User:Calton

• Yawn. --Historian 08:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Elaborate but textbook case of WP:VANITY in action. An expat bar-owner in the provinces isn't particularly notable a priori. --Calton | Talk 02:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• "the provinces?" Hmmmm...Only one quarter of Japan's population lives in the Tokyo area, the rest live in the provinces, so you as a self-proclaimed Tokyo resident are in the minority. Life here in the boondocks is pretty good, actually. Are you saying that you might vote to keep the article if the subject was residing in Tokyo and therefore within your (rather limited) world-view? --Historian 07:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Only one quarter of Japan's population lives in the Tokyo area... That "only" is misplaced: a quarter of the entire country's population lives in one metropolitan area, which is, oh yeah, the nation's political and financial capital.

• Oh my dear chap (Calton I presume, though you didn't sign this comment). Nobody disputes that Tokyo is important, but only a quarter of Japan's population live there, as opposed to three quarters who don't. --Historian 23:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Reading apparently isn't your strong suit. Let's try again, with boldface for easier reading: That "only" is misplaced: a quarter of the entire country's population lives in one metropolitan area. Blithely repeating your misuse doesn't change that, Colin.

• For the second time, my name is not Colin. And I simply disagree about the use of the word "only". --Historian 02:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Your "disagreement" is not only fatuous, it's not even relevant. See the section below, which you apparently skipped. --Calton | Talk 07:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• No, Calton, my old mate, you are wrong there. I ignored it as being not worth the time or energy in a busy day.--Historian 07:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Some numbers: about 8% of Americans live in the New York City area, about 12% of Britons in Greater London, and about 18% of Canadians and French live in the Toronto and Paris metro regions. In Japan, the comparable figure is about 27%. So yes, "only a quarter" is a misuse.
• Hmmmm...let me see...did I make any reference to NYC, London, Toronto or Paris in my original statement? If not then I think you were reading rather too much between the lines. What kind of a copywriter are you? Obviously quite a creative one... --Historian 08:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Of course, since these are for the countries as a whole, it's a phony comparison: where you actually are, the actual place I referred to as "the provinces", not the country as whole as you (misleadingly) implied, Kitakyushu is about 0.8% of the population and Fukuoka about 4%. --Calton | Talk
• OK, Calton, since you are so keen for my comment on this, here's one. When you first used the term "the provinces" it was pretty clear that it referred to all of Japan outside Tokyo. Now you want it to mean only (if I'm still allowed to use this word!) Kitakyushu. If I may be permitted a soccer metaphor here (ha ha, how appropriate) I would say that is moving the goalposts, or making the goal much smaller if you prefer (that reminds me, our team could do with some bigger ones!). Oh, and I think you should clarify whether you mean Fukuoka prefecture or Fukuoka city in your last comment above. Presumably you mean that Fukuoka prefecture has 4% do you, because there is not such a great difference between the population of Fukuoka city (about 1.4 million) and Kitakyushu (just under one million in the recent national census.) --Historian 07:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Are you saying that you might vote to keep the article if the subject was residing in Tokyo. I wouldn't vote to keep articles on, say, small-time barmen, no matter where they lived. --Calton | Talk 20:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• I see. How about small-time copy-writers? And by the way the entry is not autobiographical, though I admit I do know the person who is described.--Historian 22:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Let me check...hmm, no, I don't see any vanity articles about any small-time copywriters based in Tokyo. Mind pointing me to one? Because I'd put in on AfD in a hot second. --Calton | Talk 01:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Do you mean VfD, Colin, sorry Calton? --Historian 02:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Let me look at the top of this page...hmmm...it seems to say "Articles for Deletion". Do you mean, perhaps, Volunteer Fire Department? Variable Frequency Drive? ? Why would I be adding vanity articles about small-time copywriters based in Tokyo (which you imply are lying thick upon the ground, though you've still not told me where) into, say, Vacuum fluorescent display? --Calton | Talk 07:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Right, Calton, you are absolutely right on this one old boy. Humble apologies. --Historian 07:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Advertising too ? Angus McLellan 20:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, Angus, I admit it is shameless advertising. We need all the football players we can get in our team! Would you like a trial? --Historian 23:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• A bar owner proclaiming he is shocked -- shocked! -- to be thought of as promoting his business is, to put it mildly, a bit rich. --Calton | Talk 01:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Colin doesn't even know this article exists. I have written it without his knowledge. --Historian 02:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I've changed my vote. I thought it was a good idea at the time I started the entry, but it seems that it is vanity and inappropriate to wikipedia, or perceived as such by the majority, so that's fair enough. I can probably use this material elsewhere on the web anyway. Thank you everyone. I have learned from this rather bruising experience.--Historian 22:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a nice article, I hope you find a good home for it. WP:Alternatives may be of use. Kappa 04:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you, Kappa. That's the nicest thing anybody has said about it so far.I shall certainly be more careful about starting articles on wikipedia in future, because I haven't encountered this level of testosterone-fuelled aggression before. Life must be even more stressful in Tokyo than I imagined. Glad I don't live there, though I do enjoy the occasional visit.--Historian 07:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• To whoever has the power to delete articles - administrators I presume. Please note that I have deleted my initial Keep vote and replaced it with a Delete vote, which makes it unanimous now in favour of deletion. I do hope it will not be too long before that happens and we can all forget about this mistake on my part. Regards and Apologies, --Historian 15:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete In no way worthy of wikipedia. An Siarach

• Thank you. That makes it 11-0 in favour of deletion if my arithmetic is correct. If that were a soccer score it would probably qualify as a "hyper-rout" (if the word exists) or a massacre, thrashing etc. So surely it is time to put this article out of its misery? --Historian 15:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well, it is still here, and if it is not going to be deleted yet I may as well keep editing it. (Is this a Catch 22?!) Though I say it myself, it is getting better and better. I might even change my vote back to Keep! --Historian 23:14, 9 February 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.