Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 26
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] May 26
- 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. bainer (talk) 08:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Doublethink: A Tale of Unintended Consequences (novel)
Advert for newly published first novel. No sign it's had the slightest impact on the literary world, and seems to be the sole product of its publisher, "Raise the Bar Press" -- in other words, self-published. Was Prod'ed, but tag removed by author with the comment Book meets several notability criteria: ISBN, Wikipedian availablity (Google Book, Keplers). Doesn't seem to be available from Amazon.com, though. (The Kepler's reference is to a bookstore in Palo Alto, California, where the author will be appearing in September as part of the store's "local and new authors" series.[7]. Good luck on the literary career and all that, but a single self-published (as it appears) book doesn't clear the notability bar. Calton | Talk 04:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Actually Kepler's is in Menlo Park, the next town north of Palo Alto. --LambiamTalk 00:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Bwithh 05:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 05:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep -- User:Wmconlon
- Discriminating against self publishing or independent presses seems rather anti-democratic
- requiring availability at Amazon would seem to constitute a commercial endorsement or advertisement for Amazon.com, which is potentially restraint of trade, if not ironic.
- first novel doesn't seem relevant, as many other first novels are included at Wikipedia.
- I (not the author) removed the Prod tag for reasons stated in the history. Disclaimer: I have an interest and did copy editing of manuscript.
-
-
-
- My mistake about the creator of the article, which was {{User|To the Point)) -- his or her only contribution to Wikipedia. As for the rest of the wikilawyering above:
-
- Discriminating against self publishing... Self-publishing is warning sign of NON-notability; to whit, the work hasn't been vetted for quality in any way, and leads to the suspicion that writer couldn't talk any publishers into shelling out money for the book. And since this is Raise the Bar Press's only product, you can't really call it an "independent press".
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Self publishing can also be a sign of controversy and commitment, among other things, so it could just as easily SIGNIFY notability as WARN of non-notability. It's not clear to me how 'suspicions' about the commercial attractiveness of a work consititute an assessment of its quality. Wmconlon 15:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- requiring availability at Amazon would seem to constitute a commercial endorsement or advertisement for Amazon.com...potentially restraint of trade First off, that's the second most laughable pseudo-legal argument I've seen so far this year. Secondly, it's an utterly irrelevant laughable pseudo-legal argument, since the point of the noting the lack of Amazon sales is not as an sort of requirement, but as an illustration of the lack of notability -- and a direct counterargument to claims of "availability".
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Using a single commercial source as a criterion for notability would seem to me to be a commercial endorsement. To illustrate notability, consider the book's inclusion into Google Book Search, which is not automatically granted to any publication with an ISBN. I'm not sure who made claims of limited availability, but it is available online. Wmconlon 15:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- ...many other first novels are included at Wikipedia' Yes, , but utterly irrelevant, since these are for actually notable authors who have already written or published other books (The Town and the City) or for novels which are famous in their own right (To Kill a Mockingbird). Besides, the "If X exists, you must allow Y" is bogus on its face: we're talking about this book, not others, and if you know of some otherwise unremarkable contemporary debut novels with articles on Wikipedia, let me know and I'll put them up on AfD, too.
- I have an interest and did copy editing of manuscript. Which makes you, essentially, indistinguishable from the book's author and (presumed) article creator as far as your self-interest goes.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Wikipedia is not a free PR vehicle. Try calling that gasbag Michael Krasny up at KQED if you're looking for promotional opportunities. --Calton | Talk 07:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Neither Mr. Krasny nor your opinion of him seem germane to this discussion. Would you strike that comment, please? Wmconlon 15:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Delete per nom. Let's not turn wikipedia into a vehicle for self promotion. --Alphachimp talk 06:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete for reasons given by nominator. DVD+ R/W 06:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete- Wikipedia is not advertising space. Reyk YO! 08:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable. MaxSem 09:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, would like to point out to the honourable gentleman on the left that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Wikipedia isn't fair. Wikipedia isn't an indescriminate collection of titibits of info. We are not trying to collect the world's knowledge. We are an encyclo. --Quentin Smith 14:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Huh? My 1968 Random House Dictionary of the English Language, College Edition definition 1: "Encyclopedia ... covering all branches of knowledge, or all aspects of one subject" Wmconlon 16:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Delete. I don't think a book as to be on amazon.com to be notable, but the article doesn't otherwise assert notability. How is it different from any of the other excellent essays and writings on popular culture available out on the internet? I'm all for antiestablishmentarianism when it comes to the publishing industry but I think the article needs to show that it's made any kind of splash. Aguerriero (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Author response
Hello all, It is clear that this group takes its role as the guardians of the sanctity of Wikipedia very seriously. That is to be commended. As the author of Doublethink, I thought it would be helpful to address some the misconceptions that have been posted here.
I wrote the book to help build bridges in our very polarized country in order to get people of different political perspectives talking to each other again. In the fall of 2005, I was going through the normal route of talking to publishers and agents, when one of the agents explained that even if we got a deal the next day it would be 18 months before the book would hit the streets. Given that I felt the book could enhance the discourse around the 2006 election cycle, I CHOSE to self-publish instead.
As to your concern about quality, the book has been carefully vetted by over 60 readers over the course of its development. Many of them are published authors, professional writers, and industry leaders. I also worked with a professional editor in NY who used to work for the big publishing houses. Dr. Conlon did the copy editing as a favor to me because of our tight production schedule. Perhaps if you read the book yourselves, you would see that it is well-written, thoughtful, and provocative.
Clearly quality is often a matter of taste. These are two examples of works by self-published authors you feature on the site, that might not make the cut for me but others might reasonably disagree. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebus_the_Aardvark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elfquest
I also CHOSE not to sell the book on Amazon. I feel they have been responsible for many of ills of the modern publishing trade just as I chose to print the book in the U.S. because I felt it made an important statement that was consistent with the message of the book.
As a marketing professional, I am experimenting with non-traditional ways to communicate with prospective readers and encourage reasonable discussion and debate. I do not view Wikipedia as a promotional outlet in that I don’t see it generating many sales but rather as a forum to encourage discourse on the subject of responsible government.
After all, The WikiProject Novels states “It also aims to encourage and promote the writing of articles on all types of Novels.”
It does not specify ONLY novels by famous authors or only books sold on Amazon nor does it say that ONLY long-time Wiki participants are permitted to post articles.
For example, Jennifer Government, also not a well-known work, is linked from the Nineteen Eighty Four page. It takes a neutral tone but was clearly written by an insider. I used this page as a model for my article : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Government
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_Consequences This article, in contrast, has all sorts of non-neutral and self-serving promotional material such as quotes about the book and links to several overtly promotional pages on other sites.
I welcome your suggestions as to how to improve this article so that it would be considered appropriate for inclusion on the site.
Thank you,
J.E. Schwartz To the Point 17:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I would suggest that the two articles you pointed out might have some issues, but they also have substantial references that give them a basis for notability. Should your novel reach that point, I'm sure that someone will be more than happy to replace the article at that time. Tony Fox 18:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Advice. If you can make sure the novel gets multiple independent reviews in respectable newspapers or magazines, or notable awards (including winning the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest), you can rest assured that it may have its own article. We wish you and your novel all the best, but the nomination for deletion is regardless of the qualities of the novel; what we need is evidence of its reception (good or bad). --LambiamTalk 18:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments and encouragement but I am afraid I am confused. I thought the nomination for deletion was based on the assertion that it was an inappropriate advertisement, which it is not. If the issue is notability as defined by a certain number of mainstream reviews and literary awards, then I would recommend including that it on your FAQs. If it really is the case, I fear it would be necessary to remove many of the books which currently have articles on the site. It's incredibly difficult to get reviews in the Times, etc. and if you look at the publishing oriented sites, you'll learn that very few books get more than a few reviews. I've received one so far.
I haven't yet posted all the favorable responses to the book that I have received, but here is a small sample:
http://raisethebar.com/doublethink/reactions.html
Doublethink presents a frightening and convincing scenario of how the world might look with a right wing philosophy taken to the extreme. The protaganist descends from his comfortable, sheltered world into the reality of a system tuned only for the wealthy. The story is believable, giving the reader shudders to consider that this might happen to me.
—Donna Dubinsky, CEO, Numenta Inc. and co-founder/former CEO of Handspring and Palm
Schwartz is a story-teller as well as an astute political and social commentator. In this gripping tale of selfishness and greed, the author reminds us that redemption is always a possibility.
—Edith Gelles, Institute for Research on Women and Gender, Stanford University and Author of Portia: The World of Abigail Adams
As a conservative Republican who served at a Cabinet-level position within a Republican administration [at the state level], I found J.E. Schwartz's novel to be a most thoughtful reflection of an evolving political process within the greatest country in the world, America. Or is it? The political facts inherent to Joe’s life stimulate one to privately self-examine their own beliefs and to come to terms with these facts, even if the decision is “not” to come to terms with Joe’s life. A story from which we all can gain insight.
—Nicci Kobritz, President, Youthful Aging Home Health Care
If one were to post quotes by other people as a means of substantiating notability, doesn't that turn the article into a prohibited promotional vehicle? To the Point
- Delete per nom. A self-published paperback released this year that is not available in commercial bookstores is not notable, imo. -- Francs2000
19:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC) - Delete as a NN book. —Mets501talk 02:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. A self-published book out this year, not widely commercially available and with no major literary awards = not notable enough for Wikipedia. Grandmasterka 02:43, 28 May 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.
- 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. bainer (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Academic incest
Doesn't seem to be a notable term (and seems rather incredible). 547 Ghits, but I think they're actually just comparing hiring people who haven't been at other universities to incest, not actually trying to coin a neologism, and it clearly didn't spread for that reason. Rory096 05:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. More patent nonsense than rory gives it credit for being --Check 05:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Nonsense; uses a web blog as source. Cuñado
- Talk 07:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC) - Delete Better yet, it cites a forum as a source. --Alphachimp talk 07:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. DarthVader 08:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The article references are poorly chosen, but a google search shows that the phrase has been used in serious contexts such as a keynote speech by the VC/President of the University of Canberra[11]. I would delete the entire "Alternate meaning" St. Andrews section though as a silly nonnotable local phrase. Bwithh 11:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- delete. It takes more than a handful of instances of two words appearing together to make a genuine neologism.--cjllw | TALK 14:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Bad sources. Does anybody remember how "The Incest Song" goes? - Corbin Be excellent 17:06, 26 May 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.
- 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. Mailer Diablo 12:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wine trade
Unencyclopedic essay on how the laws of New York effect wine trading, delete. --Peta 06:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Cuñado - Talk 07:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. DarthVader 08:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, original research. MaxSem 09:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge at least this informative content with three-tier (alcohol distribution). The essay itself seems fact-based and could be referenced, especially by someone with easy access to sources of New York law. This system seems fairly typical for the states that use it. "Wine trade" is of course a valid topic, but should be a more general historical and geographical overview IMO. Smerdis of Tlön 16:39, 26 May 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.
- 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. bainer (talk) 08:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] One World Religion
This amounts to original research and has no verifiable sources of information. It's on the verge of being a conspiracy theory. Cuñado - Talk 06:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete No sources referenced or cited, appears to be original research. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete if the article doesn't cite any sources within the next few days. --Starionwolf 06:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Alphachimp talk 07:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Per contra, OWR is a well-recognised sub-text within the NWO-watch community, and is also a consistent theme within Millenialism. Recommend keep and expand -- SockpuppetSamuelson 07:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete And may Gaia have mercy on your familiar. Hdtopo 08:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete. I agree with SockpuppetSamuelson that "One World Religion", along with "One World Government" and sometimes "One World Monetary System" is a noteworthy bogeyman for conspiracy cranks. The question is, would this text help make a better article about this noteworthy concept? And here I ain't convinced. Smerdis of Tlön 16:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. If kept, the world "without the need for war, terrorism or other types of conflicts" would be so boring. Pavel Vozenilek 20:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete. Original research. There are aspects of it that are useful. There are people who want one world religion. For some it looks like their religion, for others its an amalgam. For yet others its an inevitable, evolving process. Often (as mentioned by others above) it is defined by its opponents. The above notwithstanding, this article is not clear or clean and contains insufficient external citation. --Christian Edward Gruber 11:46, 31 May 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.
- 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. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 365 Tomorrows
Obvious advertising content. It's ranked very low on Alexa (300,000+), fails WP:WEB, and has been deleted before. This is still not notable, and it's still a vanity page. Delete. GeorgeStepanek\talk 12:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. DarthVader 13:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, with haste. Advert/spam/NN/vanity, take your pick.--cjllw | TALK 14:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
First, I appreciate that on first blush, this may be on the edge of what is clearly defined by the guidelines, however I appreciate your considering my view as to why it should be included. I did read the original notice of deletion prior to creating this entry, and agree that to create an entry 2 days after the sites launch was extremely premature, and I would have recommended it for deletion had I been around at that point. I feel that there is enough here presently to merit inclusion, both based the quality of this entry as well as in the track record of this project. Note that I am actively fleshing out this entry as I am able to collect information.
The intent of this entry isn't advertising, rather my intention is to provide relevant information about a project that I think represents the best of what the internet is all about. Free literary content in a time when long established SciFi sites are closing down (for example SciFi.com). For people interested in Flash Fiction, Speculative Fiction and easily accessible Science Fiction, the content here exemplifies all three. There is currently only superficial information available about the authors, and my intention is to provide more in-depth bios here. The content is being translated independently into multiple languages and being reposted around the world by people who have been inspired by the content itself. I think that in this era where online publication of quality fiction is fast becoming as relevant as print publishing, this site represents a significant and ground breaking contribution to the Science Fiction and Flash Fiction genre, and as such, deserves to be included here. --Ssmith@alignsoft.com 14:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete We appreciate your input but we can only allow articles for sites that meet the guidlines for notability. You article will be more than welcome once said site gains that notability. Don't let this experiance put you off contributing to wikipedia though. Ydam 14:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I understand you are trying to keep this site free of self serving content, however this is not. When I discovered 365 last fall, I looked here to find more information about the project and the writers, and didn't find any. I'm trying to rectify that now, and I'm a little unclear on what constitutes notability. The site has been specifically noted in print in Popular Science magazine, as well as unsolicited mentions online from the likes of Warren Ellis and Cory Doctorow, both signicant members of the literary community, and both with their own entries on this site. The authors are being invited to large SciFi conventions to speak as panelists, which I think legitimizes what they're doing. One of the authors has content in print in a brick and mortor retailer, and another has a book of short stories available in paperback online, a format that authors like Cory Doctorow have embraced as being a viable means of distribution. --Ssmith@alignsoft.com 15:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The guidlines at WP:WEB will help you in deciding/proving notability. Ydam 15:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Herein lies my confusion - the guideline here: The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. ^ Examples: The webcomic When I Am King has been reviewed by The Guardian, Playboy, The Comics Journal, and Wired.
If this is an indication of notability, then shouldn't having been reviewed in Popular Science meet the standard here?
If a webcomic like 'When I Am King' rates an entry, I don't see how 365 does not. If you look at the Alexa data for the 2 sites, demian5.com (the host of wheniamking) rates 768,036, while 365 rates 341,431 --Ssmith@alignsoft.com 15:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
--Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 15:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)- Delete The criteria refers to inclusion in multiple non-trivial published works. Popular Science is only one, and its reference to 365 Tomorrows has not yet been cited. Barneyboo (Talk) 16:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The article appeared in the Feb 2006 printed mag - page 88 - i've got a scan that I can post, but i'm not sure how the copyright mechanism works for posting scans of printed publications. If someone can clear that up for me, i'll post a link to the image as served from my website.--Ssmith@alignsoft.com 16:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- One mention is not enough, unless it's a major presentation in a significant publication maybe, but should still have wider notability. Page 88 doesn't convince, I'm afraid. Tyrenius 18:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Make more of an impact with it first and then return... Tyrenius 18:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
-Dictator
GangstaEB-18:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Well - it looks like I'm on the losing end of this discussion, and i must say I'm disappointed. There doesn't seem to be much to do at this point but give in to the inevitable.
If this was a commercial site flogging a product, then I wouldn't be here trying to make note of them. Rather this is what I think should be a model for literary distribution on the internet, and an excellent example of the free sharing of meaningful ideas. With so many people flogging crap, I think this stands head and shoulders above the examples I think you're lumping it in with. When I stumbled onto it last fall it was single handedly responsible for inspiring me to start writing again after a 10 year hiatus. I think that if you spent some time reading the content there you'd appreciate the value and might be a little more receptive to my trying to put the project and it's authors into a more formal context.
I must say that the fact that When I Am King rates an entry, and this does not simply blows my mind.
If I'm to understand correctly, another mention in a tangible publication of some significance is enough to meet the burden here? I will bring this back to the table when it does meet your guidelines more completely, and I'd prefer not to waste anyones time.
Thanks for your attention. --Ssmith@alignsoft.com 19:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Your comment "this is what I think should be a model for literary distribution on the internet" is very revealing. Whether ot not you are associated with the site, your intent to promote it comes across very strongly. I think that that prompted the unanimous rejection of your article as much as the lack of references.
Wikipedia is not a place to promote anything. It's a place to describe things in a neutral way that don't need promotion. (See WP:NPOV and WP:VANITY for more information.) And I would suggest that you—and anyone in your position—should contribute to Wikipedia for a while, fixing typos and adding information to existing articles—and thereby getting a good feel for how Wikipedia works, and what it's culture, philosophy and goals are—before starting to create articles about your favorite website, band, author etc. GeorgeStepanek\talk 00:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
This is not intended as promotion - it happens that some of the content I felt was relevant and was readily available as a starting point was from their website. You'll notice that I was evolving the entry continually trying to collect more outside information right up the point that it was slapped with a deletion notice. I honestly wasn't aware that i'd find myself defending the validity of the article before i'd had a chance to flesh it out. As for spending more time here, I've been consuming the content for ages, however this is the first time I've actually tried to contribute to it, and it's obviously not going so well. I picked this as it's an entry I went looking for myself not that long ago, and I'm in a position where I can assemble the relevant content. I had thought that what I had to offer here had some value, and I'm sorry you don't seem to agree.
Like I said, there's content in here that's equally if not more questionable as to it's validity and relevance. I do, however, appreciate that you have to be fairly aggressive in your efforts to keep the signal to noise ratio up, so I don't begrudge you this rejection. I think I'd be taking it a bit better if there was some acknowledgement of the fact that I am making an effort to contribute, and if there was some help being offered instead of a page of 'read the rules' and 'Delete' badges. I have no more spare time than I'm sure any of you have, and I've read the rules and thought that I was following at least the spirit of them as the letter is somewhat vague. My field is software development, not law, so I'm used to a little more latitude in the implementation.
In any event, i think this is done. I still would appreciate confirmation that another review in a print publication would meet the burden, and I'd also like someone to acknowledge that 5 authors producing 280+ works of short fiction at least in theory should rate as more respectable than a web comic that's described as 'a wordless infinite canvas webcomic', citing Playboy as one of it's references in print. I'm not being hostile, I'm just a little frustrated and dissappointed, and I hope you can appreciate that.
Cheers, --Ssmith@alignsoft.com 03:20, 27 May 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.
- 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.
For its size, this debate is astonishingly good-humoured. Clearly, for me to write a closure that deals with each editor's comments individually is impractical, and would not be useful. Nevertheless, it seems apparent from reading this (yes, I did) that those who would delete really do have things on their side. SlimVirgin's points are easily the best argued reason for keeping, but many of those arguing to keep use, for the most part, arguments that really are just weak. Those who say "we keep sexual perversions and Pokemon" are certainly the weakest: as ever, those points belong in other debates and are not very useful in dealing with this article since they are referencing unrelated topics. Several other "keep" interpretations are successfully rebutted: Jayjg's and Yamaguchi's (the latter urging us to keep based on his/her personal speculations), Zer0faults's, and the key parts of DyslexicEditor's; various editors cite these also. Mackensen appears to be making an obscure point about trolls, and anyway relies on a rebutted argument. Perhaps he means that we should keep it to prove to the more trollish parts of the world that we are able to turn their work against them, but we don't need to prove that to them: we have 1,000,000 articles to show them. Stephen B Streater's is almost self-contradictory and the later editor who relies on it equally so. Dread Lord Cyberskull seems to comment solely on the nomination, rather than taking account of all the editors who went before him. (There are various phrasings of most of these.)
Some of the delete arguments are weak too, though, most particularly that the article is associated with "disruption". SlimVirgin makes a point to Blnguyen that we have many articles about people to which things have happened, and that is an important statement. But the various characterisations as a storm in a teacup, a minor incident, self-referentiality, news reportage are signally unrebutted by anyone; noone even seems to make an attempt to disagree with them. Even, (dare I say it) the (non-)notability of the individual isn't really contested, with no impugning of Phil Sandifer intended. The point in response to DavidGerard's comment is important. If this topic has made multiple headlines (it is unreasonable to use a continuous tense here) in a month, say, then perhaps we can reconsider. In the meantime, if Wikimedia needs to report on this at all, Wikinews: is just down the road. Also observe that there remains the possibility of adding part of a sentence in generic terms to some more-obviously useful article about real-life harassment of project volunteers.
Now, I suppose I am about to outrage approximately 41 people, but really I don't think there's a lot of value in a Wikipedia:Deletion review at this moment, unless someone really thinks I have this totally wrong and that it needs to be fixed urgently. It got speedied and restored repeatedly (in a rather poor manner), has been through DRV and had probably the most comprehensive, blood-free AfD of any article ever, and trying to turn the handle again right now is unlikely to achieve anything much. I'm not trying to appoint myself as the Final Authority, but the avenues are largely exhausted until such time as something about this shifts so significantly that a large proportion of 108-ish people have their minds changed.
Finally, a procedural note. I didn't participate here, but have followed the debate with interest. I did, some days ago, reverse an early closure of the debate, a course of action supported on the talk page. I don't think that re-opening a debate that (evidently) had reasonable mileage left in it leaves me with a conflict of interest, particularly as I have not otherwise joined the discussion; it was more interesting to follow it as it progressed and weigh the arguments. If you got this far, thank you for reading. -Splashtalk 19:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Philip Sandifer
Concerns over notability and surrounding disruption. FeloniousMonk 18:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete; mentioned in the news, but not otherwise notable. - Liberatore(T) 18:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete, one story in a local newspaper doesnt make you notable (no offense to Phil). --Rory096 18:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The subject is a published author, he has been written about by a notable writer, and the incident highlights important concerns regarding academic freedom. Story appears to be growing in notoriety. Jayjg (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Rebuttal The subject is barely a published author - based on the works referenced in the wikipedia article, he has written two short articles for an obscure online-only webcomics studies website plus he is co-author of a short 4 paragraph response to someone else's article about comics. The subject has been barely written about by a marginally notable writer - Cory Doctorow writes two brief posts about the police/snuff stories/wikipedia incident on the boingboing blog, which publishes 5-8 new posts or so a day (this might have taken Doctorow perhaps 5 minutes total for both posts); the incident is a very localized and obscure example of thousands and thousands thousands of incidents that are related to issues of academic freedom or freedom of creativity. Bwithh 19:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete One mention in a local paper about cops asking a guy questions. Oh no the sky is falling! Wikipedia is not wikinews. Also, something being on DRV and AFD at the same time is beyond retarded. Kotepho 18:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, the "quality" of the article isn't relevant: we can establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that Sandifer is a graduate student, that he was mentioned for this harrassment in boingboing, etc. But this doesn't meet the "average professor" test, let alone exceed it--a long-canonical example of the biographical notability requirement. We do not need to use Wikipedia to "highlight important concerns regarding academic freedom" or participate in any other crusades, no matter how worthy we think they are. Demi T/C 18:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems like a non-story and not sure why anyone would care. But also a decent article backed up by a news source. -- JJay 18:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete I've had a hard time deciding on this, but I just am not convinced he meets WP:BIO without considerable bending of the current language. I'm sorry if people see this as wonk-ish of me to vote delete after all this, hopefully my actions in the DRV weren't hopelessly incomprehensible. --W.marsh 18:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Disruption is not the same as "things I dislike". — goethean ॐ 18:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Demi. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete fails the professor test. RN 18:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, this is not only about overzealous police, since this (allegedly) started with just an email to Bernie Machen, the University of Florida's president. That makes it a pretty astonishing case of successfully manipulating the president/police to accomplish someone's goal of harassment. Gnewf 18:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and casually wonder why we're talking about it here AND at DRV, failing WP:BIO. This is just a minor news story. Friday (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Demi and Kotepho. Being notable to Wikipedians is not the same as being notable in general. Disagree w/JayG that this is a significant issue of academic freedom. We can wait until Phil gets his doctorate and publishes a crime novel, *then* he'll be notable. (Cheers, Phil!) MilesVorkosigan 19:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
*Delete, very interesting story, but not encylopedic...yet anyway. I once reported to police on a story I stumbled across at a poetry site by an alleged ex-con just out of prison who gave horrible graphic details on what he was going to do to the woman who landed him in prison, including her name, her town, and the date he intended to murder her (just a few days hence from my reading). Phil's story is a bit more mild, but I can see why police might be concerned enough to check it out. On the other hand, Phil also seems to be the victim of harrassment. At any rate, fascinating as it is, it's not encyclopedic. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 19:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, changing my mind, if Daniel Brandt is considered notable as an anti-Wikipedia activist, then Philip Sandifer is at least as notable as the victim of these activists, particularly since this case is receiving notable attention from Cory Doctorow and UK journalists. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 00:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- If the primary claim to notability is Brandt's involvement, then wouldn't a brief summary at Daniel Brandt suffice? Is the Sandifer incident substantial enough to warrant its own page? ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 11:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, great admin, not notable enough for an encyclopaedia. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, after arguing against the speedy deletion of this article (which I believed to be out of process), I now switch gears and vote to delete this article properly and within process. He's a favourite target of WR trolls and was harassed by the police because they succeeded in complaining about him. In my opinion, his biographical details and what happened to him doesn't make him notable enough to warrant an article. I'd like to note that I greatly respect Phil and think he is very notable within Wikipedia, but I don't think he's notable outside of it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete not a notable person or a notable incident. Wikipedia is neither a local newspaper nor a provincial outpost of Indymedia. Bwithh 19:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Jayjg. Passes the Wikitruth test. Mackensen (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- What Wikitruth test? Wikitruth has articles on several admins, we don't have articles on them here... --Rory096 19:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I originally was gonig to vote delete but then came across about 300+ articles on google talking about the situation and subject. It creates an odd situation when we as Wikipedians need to vote how notable someone we already know is. Oddly enough perhaps while he shouldn't be notable, his presence as a Wikipedia Admin is causing it to spread quickly on the internet. I think people should step back perhaps and not view this as a fellow admin, but as a person on the net that now has over 300+ articles written about not only his comics but also now this police involvement and judge it from there. Notability sometimes derives from infamy. --Zer0faults 19:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, what? --Rory096 19:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- He didn't say just news stories. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oh come ON. 400 Google hits is not notable. --Rory096 20:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Around 12000 Google hits for "Phil Sandifer". Don't know how many of those are Philip (some certainly are). Jayjg (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Try that again. --Rory096 20:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- If you don't think 400 Google hits is notable, you should be talking to Zer0faults, not me. I was just pointing out where he probably got the "over 300+ articles" figure. (I, as noted below, don't think notability is a useful criterion.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment Did you or Zer0faults actually read through your supposed 400+ google search results - even just the first couple of pages to check the names? There is more than one "Philip Sandifer" - There are multiple hits for a healthcare executive, a farmer, a transportation engineer and a "hotshot truck driver" character in a 1950s movie ("Daddy-O"), which seems to have the lion's share of hits. Furthermore, many or most of the hits for the Philip Sandifer we're actually talking about appear to be his postings to things like forums, amazon.com, or email listservs Bwithh 23:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Further comment The above comment of mine refers to the search for "Phil Sandifier" made by Jayjg and Rory96. "Philip Sandifier" turns up a better search result but there are are many hits for a Christian musician of the same name and also there are numerous hits of the forum/email kind Bwithh 23:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Did you or Zer0faults actually read through your supposed 400+ google search results - even just the first couple of pages to check the names? There is more than one "Philip Sandifer" - There are multiple hits for a healthcare executive, a farmer, a transportation engineer and a "hotshot truck driver" character in a 1950s movie ("Daddy-O"), which seems to have the lion's share of hits. Furthermore, many or most of the hits for the Philip Sandifer we're actually talking about appear to be his postings to things like forums, amazon.com, or email listservs Bwithh 23:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Around 12000 Google hits for "Phil Sandifer". Don't know how many of those are Philip (some certainly are). Jayjg (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oh come ON. 400 Google hits is not notable. --Rory096 20:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- He didn't say just news stories. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, what? --Rory096 19:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nn outside of Wikipedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete If this weren't about a wikipedian, there would be no question regarding non-notability. "Grad student harassed by cops, makes local paper" -- that description fits several thousand people, maybe tens of thousands, considering how vocally politically active grad students can be. I think the speedy was a close call, but valid. I don't even think this should be here. Xoloz 19:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, Its a good verifiable article. No good reason to delete it. The bellman 19:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Non-notable but well-sourced and written in an encyclopedic fashion (which is to say, in time-neutral prose, organized under a topical name). Wikipedia cannot be harmed by keeping this article, it can only benefit: look at the end goal of the project. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:BIO. Gamaliel 19:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete failes WP:BIO. The only test relevent is "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)". One event with little coverage doesn't measure up. --Rob 20:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for now - he's borderline. If deleted, it shouldn't preclude recreating the article should notability increase - the story is still live and may achieve greater prominence. And academics specialising in comics aren't that common either. Also, I think with the number of people who will be watching it, it'll stay written and referenced to a good standard - David Gerard 20:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete not notable. Fred Bauder 20:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete I think there's juuuust not enough notability to have an article on the subject. I agree with David Gerard that recreation is a definite future possibility (not that the article cannot be recreated anyway, just that I think it should be in the future if further notoriety is asserted), but as of now, I don't think Sandifer is sufficiently significant. -- Kicking222 20:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not sufficiently notable with his own work for inclusion (or else every professor at my undistinguished alma mater is, too). Though he is currently in the media, it's not for his own notability but rather as an example of someone affected by this sort of situation; I don't think this justifies an article yet. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- We should probably be deleting Ghadeer Jaber Mkheemar and similar articles then, don't you think? Jayjg (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Probably; that VfD was terrible. People were marking their nonvotes as keep, even though they were saying rename or merge. The true result was probably a merge into a broader article. --Rory096 20:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know enough about that one to say, which is why I didn't bother commenting on it; however, I do think I have a fair picture of this one. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- We should probably be deleting Ghadeer Jaber Mkheemar and similar articles then, don't you think? Jayjg (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Adam Bishop 20:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: The slate was wiped clean when the article was transferred? That's good in a way, because here I will say the thing that really bothers me about the article before I offer up the Wikipedia-reason. Stalkers are out for power. They are like rapists, in that what they want is to own the person they're bothering. Having an article about the effects of the stalker's actions would be nothing but sheer joy and reward for the person who wrote the U of F president. Let's not give the arsonist the pleasure of watching the fire. As for the deletion guideline reason, it's pretty simple: charges and allegations are not notability/fame. Phil was accused of being a bad person, and that caused a tempest in a teapot. It is illustrative, and it is interesting, and the article was well written, but it doesn't rise to encyclopedic level. Were Phil kicked out of his program or arrested, then he would become a cause. Essentially, the question is whether this goes beyond the local (and web local ... meaning us) to the regional and whether it represents a new offense or a reiteration of an old one. To me, it does not rise to the level of encyclopedic yet, and we should be happy that it doesn't. Geogre 20:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Geogre, we don't know who did this to Phil, so I'm speculating, but my guess is that they're not at all happy with this article, because what they did has backfired, in that they didn't harm Phil at all (the reverse, if anything), and it may backfire even more if this lawyer gets hold of the records. So although I agree with your arsonist reasoning in general, I don't think it applies in this case. In any event, we shouldn't create or delete articles with that kind of thing in mind. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- One of the votes below is to move to namespace and preserve it in the accounts of stalking. I understand that Phil could have offended folks with some other activity, that it might not have been Wikipedia related, but it seems to me that we only know about this incident because we're Wikipedians and so is he. I.e. I doubt any of us would have encountered the story through the Florida papers. In my own day, we had a director of composition who was having sex in his office during office hours with a 19 year old student while going through a divorce and had advertised for "bi-curious females" to have a threesome and video session with, and his ex-wife leaked all this to the press. It raised a whole raft of interesting ethical and academic questions, and it ran in the newspapers (three of them) for 2 months and made a mention in The Chronicle of Higher Education. Then he got caught double billing the U. and got fired. No one remembers this now, except those there at the time. My point is that my U. refused to act on personal actions and free expression to terminate this guy, so the U. failed to really create news. It was juicy, and it was racy, but the measure of it is after the events have concluded. If we preserved this in a namespace 'tales of stalking' or 'how to save yourself' file, it would be cool. Geogre 23:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The situation was written about by Cory Doctorow, a well-known writer, and The Gainsville Sun, which means we have reliable third-party sources, and it's an interesting story. Just as we shouldn't keep the article because it's about a Wikipedian, nor should we delete it for that reason, and it seems that's at least in part what's happening here. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - I think it would be wise to strike a better balance between the conflicting ethics of having this article in existence on Wikipedia. --HappyCamper 20:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- 'Keepper SlimVirgin. Hugh G. Rection 20:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: a minor news story, also, per Geogre. --Hetar 20:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, recentism. Pavel Vozenilek 20:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, minor news story. Kusma (討論) 21:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep', We keep less notable stuff than this. Plus it's a well written article - not a stub.--God Ω War 21:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per KusmaRicDod 21:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Geogre. —Viriditas | Talk 21:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, ephemeral news story of limited impact. If the world later comes to see the 2006 Sandifer investigations as a watershed event in law enforcement/Internet relations, we can write about it then. FreplySpang 21:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It is an interesting and well written article, documented in an encyclopedic fashion, fulfilling the very goal of this project. The strongest argument that I can make to retain this article for now is this: as this is blogged about more and more, the number of relevant Google hits will increase exponentially over the next few weeks. Close this discussion and come back to it one month from now. Yamaguchi先生 22:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as wikipedia isn't a source for any information. This person is not notable, the whole surrounding story isn't notable, and should be deleted as such. If he is famous in a few months, that's fine, but as of now he isn't! Bjelleklang - talk 22:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Bjelleklang and WP:BIO. Crum375 22:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per Rory096, FreplySpang, Mindspillage, Demi, and Zoe.--Sean Black 22:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Rob. Pecher Talk 22:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per SlimVirgin. I would support though renaming this I am Ready to Serve my Country, since that is what the article is actually about. --LambiamTalk 23:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Move to Wikipedia space and/or merge with something about Wikistalking. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 23:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete looks more like a news article than a bio of a notable individual, even though the guy has my sympathies. The info in the article, however, is a great example of cyber-stalking or wikipedia-stalking and could easily be included or merged into other such articles. Ande B 23:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep He is notable because of what happened. There is precident based on the news stories. This is a notable free speach issue, so I support it's inclusion as a Wikipedia page, and I would support a Wikipedia page about my IRL identity if I was in the news (I use a pseudonym.)--Nick Dillinger 23:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable article instigated by harassment and manufactured controversy ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 00:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Anetode Jaranda wat's sup 00:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, doesn't meet WP:BIO and violates WP:POINT.--Peta 00:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Hahnchen 01:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. One news article and a bunch of blog entries does not make a subject notable. Try again when there's some media coverage of the anti-Wikipedia angle. Otherwise, it's self-referential. Fagstein 02:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable. Really. It is. Subject and incident both. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Rory. —BorgHunter
ubx(talk) 03:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC) - Delete. NN, however interesting.--Ezeu 03:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete- Wikipedia only decribes notable things; it does not generate notability. Therefore, being notable only on Wikipedia doesn't make this person noteworthy in the real world. Reyk YO! 03:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Fails professor test. I have at one point or another had way more google hits than Phil currently does using the same search criteria/setting and I am definitely not notable. Userify or delete ++Lar: t/c 03:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: No valid reason stated to delete. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete not notable grad student; not notable incident. Totally unencyclopedic. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as self-referential wikipediacruft. This would never have had a chance here if it weren't for the WP connection. There are far more important academics, full professors at prestigious universities with several published books, who just barely survive AfD. up+land 07:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, more notable than Air Force Amy[25][26], and a hell of a lot more verifiable. — May. 27, '06 [09:04] <freak|talk>
- ...and let's not forget Sophia Yan[27], and zOMG, Seth Ravin[28]. — May. 28, '06 [12:17] <freak|talk>
- I'm sorry, maybe I'm not understanding the point you are trying to make. Phil is more notable than a girl that has played at Carneige Hall, has won many music competitions, has a New York Times article--because she gets less googles? Kotepho 13:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- ...and let's not forget Sophia Yan[27], and zOMG, Seth Ravin[28]. — May. 28, '06 [12:17] <freak|talk>
- Keep per SlimVirgin. This story has been published and is intersting by itself. Strong Keep. Zeq 09:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Simetrical. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep barely passes on media notability for the incident (no offense phil but your barely notable.) ALKIVAR™
10:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC) - Delete: This seems to be a petty minor story about nothing. The article is implying a potential case of sub judice here anyway. If the case escalates in the media when the files are released (or not) and a legal test case arises then Sandifer may possibly be deemed notable, at the moment he is not. A few google hits does not make some-one notable. if this was the case we would have articles on every plumber and cowboy-builder in London. Giano | talk 11:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The person is notable within Wikipedia but not outside. The story at this stage is not sufficiently notable to warrant an article. If the circumstances change, we can then create an article. Capitalistroadster 13:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. A storm in a teacup. Campus police question people quite often, and this was only regarded as a big deal because of the extreme pettiness of the complaint and Phil's Wikipedia connections. For internal Wikipedia purposes, there is adequate documentation of the matter on the archives of the Wikien-L mailing list. --Tony Sidaway 15:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The subject matter here is definitely noteable, and exceeds our standards for verifiability. It bothers me to think that some of those interested in seeing this deleted are somehow biased due to his relationship with Wikipedia. If we can carry a page for Angela Beesley then I see no problem with this either. Silensor 16:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Angela Beesley is on the Board of Trustees of an organization managing a Top 20 website. Phil Sandifer is a janitor on a Top 20 website. If you want to argue the notability of the legal issues, fine, but comparing Phil to Angela is fruitless. Ral315 (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- That is your opinion and I respect that, but in my mind this article is far more interesting and far more noteworthy. My argument stands. Silensor 17:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Angela Beesley is on the Board of Trustees of an organization managing a Top 20 website. Phil Sandifer is a janitor on a Top 20 website. If you want to argue the notability of the legal issues, fine, but comparing Phil to Angela is fruitless. Ral315 (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Ral315 (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. --Improv 17:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Clearly non-notable. If an incident on this scale had happened to some anonymous webmaster for another major website, we probably wouldn't keep the article in question either. Perhaps an article on the incident, or on anti-Wikipedianism in general, would merit keeping, but not one on Mr. Sandifer as things stand. Johnleemk | Talk 18:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, actually clearly notable. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 19:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep notable, I knew about him from several places before seeing this aricle digital_me(t/c) 19:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- You're sure that place wasn't actually on Wikipedia, right? --Rory096 05:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I hope and expect he'll be sufficiently notable for his scholarship someday, but right now, he's just an admin who some asshole unsuccessfully set up for harassment. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per Geogre. Not (yet) notable; fails WP:BIO. — mark ✎ 20:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Deletenn, but figure out a way to stop this dam off wiki harassment by a bunch of spineless little mamas boys.--MONGO 22:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete NN outside of wikipedia --rogerd 22:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete certainly doesn't meet the notability standard as an academic or author. and an article about some guy being interviewed by campus police, with no further action, is hardly encyclopedic. Derex 01:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- delete Where is the OFFICE when we need it?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SYSS Mouse (talk • contribs) 02:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete due to self-reference and notability. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 03:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Although I tend to have low notability standards, they are not quite this low. Paul August ☎ 04:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn. Grue 08:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 11:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Were this not an article about someone who edits wikipedia, there would be no need for debate, it would be a simple delete per WP:BLP. We certainly should not relax our biography standards simply because the subject edits wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - While the subject of the article might be notable to Wikipedia (and the events outlined therein are worrying indeed) I don't think the article establishes notability sufficiently enough to be kept. - Mark 12:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment No articles link to Philip Sandifer[29], and I can't think which would except lists. That for me is more damning for an article than failure to meet guidelines. No-one's going to read this article unless they're part of the editing community or the, ahem, retired editing community. Keeping such an article would be pretty self-centred. Yes, I know the way the discussion is going, but I find some of the keep reasonings rather baffling. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Just because a single event surrounding a person may be notable to include in another article, that does not mean that an article about that person is needed or wanted. --mav 14:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - This incident might be worth a brief mention in another article, but is clearly not notable in and of itself. 'Dog bites
manWikipedian - film at 11'. --CBDunkerson 18:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC) Very StrongDelete nnvanity article. non notable, an academic insofar as he's a student but he hasn't recieved his PhD yet. His notability for other reasons is meager at best. --Strothra 21:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)- Note: This can hardly be called "vanity". The subject did not write this article. (I also voted delete, but for different reasons) --rogerd 04:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- thanks for pointing that out, updated--Strothra 04:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, not noteworthy as an academic, and not noteworthy outside the context of Wikipedia. Dr Zak 00:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - this was in the news. Let's give it some time. If there is no further developments, the material may be merged into some other article. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- This carjacking near Houston was in the news, too. [30] So what? Plenty of things make the news. An encyclopedia, OTOH, compiles things that people care about. The people voting "keep" would do well to ask themselves why they did vote to keep. The answer, I fear, is because they know Phil from editing here. It's a self-reference par excellence, and self-references for good reason do not go into the main namespace. Move it to Wikipedia:Pwned Wikistalkers/Phil Sandifer, or to User:Phil Sandifer/I pwned my wikistalker if you must. Dr Zak 02:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Jayjg.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - while I don't think that Phil meets WP:BIO (thus far) the incident is worthy of inclusion in WP. As SlimVirgin mentioned above, it has been covered by a reputable journalist, and has attracted the interest of an attorney not representing Phil. Add the idea that it may have originated with a block made by Phil, and it's a compelling story. Maybe a tad self-referential, but worth inclusion in WP. Guettarda 02:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Whether Cory Doctorow is a "reputable" journalist is disputable; he's probably better known as an indefatigably self-promoting minor science fiction writer with a raging Disneyland fetish. The story was "covered" with a couple of brief posts on a blog. Bwithh 02:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Harassment. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 02:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete not notable as an academic or outside of wikipedia. This is an article which only reports attack on some person who is only very weakly notable to wikipedians who are "in the loop" because of that - I would think only a small number of WPedians watch AN/I, read the signpost RfArb, RfC types of things.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- How can it be an attack article if it says nothing bad about the subject, and the subject doesn't view it as an attack article? Jayjg (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Blnguyen, if it were an attack article, I wouldn't have worked on it and would have supported its deletion. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I reworded my comment, but mainly the subject is only notable for being the subject of attacks.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- We have lots of articles on people who are only notable because of something that has happened to them, rather than because of something they've done themselves. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I reworded my comment, but mainly the subject is only notable for being the subject of attacks.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Blnguyen, if it were an attack article, I wouldn't have worked on it and would have supported its deletion. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Actually, I think this is a valid A7 speedy candidate. The story is a minor one, and being visited by the police is not grounds for significance. Phil Sandifer is a good admin, but not an encyclopedically notable one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails the professor test, and the minor local news story doesn't qualify either. It goes without saying that Yet Another Lame Wikipedia Review Drama Storm doesn't qualify, either. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- I am additionally troubled that a fair number of the references in this article are to blog posts, which don't generally qualify as reliable sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, and quickly. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, sufficiently noteworthy. — JEREMY 10:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Xoloz and Capitalistroadster.--cj | talk 10:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Notability is based on a self-reference to wikipedia. Not encyclopedic to reference oneself, particularly ones editor in ones encyclopedia. Ansell Review my progress! 11:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, sufficiently noteworthy. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable. --InShaneee 14:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep-- Heptor talk 18:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable enough for an article (neither is Brandt). Wikipedia has got to stop creating, and more importantly, keeping, articles about its goings on and its critics (and their websites). It's all non-notable, cruft and fodder for edit wars and rumors. -- Kjkolb 18:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- To second your point: I think WP must recognize that like a news service, an encyclopedia is an observer (of notable news or facts, respectively). In both cases it is imperative for the neutral observer not to create news or facts while observing, just like in science a good sensing device must not influence the phenomenon being sensed. I think, hard as it may be to resist, WP must have a higher threshold of notability for anything related to itself, lest it create a feedback effect and thereby create new facts by its own reporting action. Crum375 19:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Xoloz. --Doc ask? 19:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Surely being covered by a notable weblog by Boing Boing denotes notability? Computerjoe's talk 19:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Most of the subjects Boingboing posts about are not notable enough for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not meant to be a dumping ground for every kind of ephemera. Bwithh 20:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment about "Short Story" I've just read Paul Sandifier's "I'm ready to serve my country". It's literally 9 lines worth of non-literary and non-poetic text. I think the description of this piece as a "short story" in the article is misleading Bwithh 20:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep He looks like that one American Idol star that David Spade called "Billygoat". His story is also a clear case of where a school abuses their power to get someone arrested based on a fictional story. Also it's got lots of good sources while in comparsion Encyclopedia Dramatica lacks any sources and it's an article. DyslexicEditor 21:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Four of the linked sources are from two different blogs, one of which belongs to the subject and one of which belongs to a personal friend of the subject. Those are not good sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- I meant the "The Gainsville Sun" and "boingboing", references 4, 5, and 6. Aren't they good sources? DyslexicEditor 03:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Boingboing is a blog, and Doctorow, the author of the boingboing posts, is a friend of Sandifer's. Not a really great source. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hm. Well I didn't notice that before. The Gainsville Sun is at least the one non-blog source, right? DyslexicEditor 06:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hence the parade of "one story in a local paper isn't enough" above. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hm. Well I didn't notice that before. The Gainsville Sun is at least the one non-blog source, right? DyslexicEditor 06:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Boingboing is a blog, and Doctorow, the author of the boingboing posts, is a friend of Sandifer's. Not a really great source. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think besides from the sources, it's primarily notable as a source of the abuses of schools. For the whole argument over wikipedia admins vs. this or that, well I don't know if that's notable here (sure other websites that collect internet drama would like it), but really to me it's about school abuses and police abuse. I've read many other stories where they've done the same thing (however it's been in high school, middle school, and similar things but not about stories in elementary school like someone accidentally brings a hunting knife to school and school policy says to turn the knife in and that's what the kid did once he got off the bus, but the school suspended him and tried to get him expelled for following its own rules). Schools also basically say kids have no rights of free speech (this sentence is my opinion summary of some news articles I saw). I don't want to dig the articles up, but this story is one example. Sure, enemies will try to defame someone, but how an organization responds to it is but. I once had an ISP with a static IP and I got in an argument with people once and my IP never changed and they sent in fake abuse reports 6-12 months after, constantly and I would disconnect my cable modem and the reports came in when it was actually disconnected, and still the ISP just believed it without checking. Same is for Florida University. Oh well, I rant. DyslexicEditor 04:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- So why does Phil get an article and your kid who brought his hunting knife to school doesn't? Why don't you, for that matter? This thing about abuses of educational institutions' legal paranoia may be notable (but only when a secondary source runs an article about them, if we try to write an article by collating a load of news stories about different people we're doing original research by synthesis). But that still wouldn't make the victims of it notable by proxy - murder is pretty notable but murder victims generally aren't. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- I meant the "The Gainsville Sun" and "boingboing", references 4, 5, and 6. Aren't they good sources? DyslexicEditor 03:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Four of the linked sources are from two different blogs, one of which belongs to the subject and one of which belongs to a personal friend of the subject. Those are not good sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Slimvirgin. Septentrionalis 22:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - This proliferation of self-referential articles is getting out of control and must be put to a halt. -- Dissident (Talk) 00:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Gnewf and Jayjg. I wish the deletionists would spend more of their time and effort in clearing out some of the manifold utterly unnoteworthy and completely unedifying sexual perversion articles instead. Tomertalk 02:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- I wish the inclusionists would spend as much time and effort helping to rewrite fictional character articles to encyclopedic standards. Alas, if you want something done around here, you have to do it yourself instead of complaining in unrelated AFDs. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- The inclusionists would never let us get away with deleting sexual perversion articles. We can't even get this article deleted! Adam Bishop 06:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- My comment was a mild chiding for bringing up a non sequitor. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- The inclusionists would never let us get away with deleting sexual perversion articles. We can't even get this article deleted! Adam Bishop 06:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- I wish the inclusionists would spend as much time and effort helping to rewrite fictional character articles to encyclopedic standards. Alas, if you want something done around here, you have to do it yourself instead of complaining in unrelated AFDs. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Neutralitytalk 02:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete, not really notable and would hardly have an article were it not for the Wikipedia link. Sandstein 04:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete -- not an encyclopedic event or (yet) notable. - Longhair 04:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - not nearly notable enough. Maybe in a few years he will deserve an article as he suggests he might on the talk page :-). NoSeptember talk 04:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep if we are keeping all comparable people. Getting fingerprinted by the fuzz is not a big deal. Happens to me quite often ;-) Grace Note 05:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Will be utterly forgotten in a fortnight. GeorgeStepanek\talk 05:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — Matt Crypto 06:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. nn. admin. Also per Geogre. jni 06:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not at all notable. Event can be mentioned in another article. --kingboyk 06:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - 'man on the street test' -> would a average man on the street know about wikipedia, maybe. Would a average man on the street consider it notable if there is a minor 'review' site critising WP, probably not. Would a average man on the street care that Phil got hassled by the cop s over some story he wrote, no way. He just isn't notable enough. 210.177.242.221 08:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- To the extent that an anon's vote counts in AFD, by the definition outlined above, articles on topics such as tachyons, the Udmurt people, or the Battle of Marj Ardebil should all be deleted. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Tachyons are a staple of science fiction, there are plenty of people interested in them to some degree. As for the other two, I'm pretty sure men on the streets of Izhevsk and Ardebil would be pretty interested. I know that they're not of much interest to people on American streets, but by that yardstick we'd be deleting Australia. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- If it makes any difference, I wrote the above. novacatz 16:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. It may seem notable because it is linked to Wikipedia, but it is not. Schutz 09:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. nn. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep An extremely compelling story. Meets minimum requirements of WP:BIO and WP:BLP. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Erm, he does? Has "the person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)?" Surely that's what you mean, as I doubt he meets the author requirement. --Rory096 20:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per SlimVirgin. MaxSem 15:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable outside of the wiki. Also, I feel sorry for the admin who has to tally these votes and make a decision. - Pureblade | Θ 17:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I concur entirely with Geogre. Wikipedia is not the place for such localised self-referential articles. I of course mean no disrespect to Phil and the problems he has faced recently. Rje 17:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Meets notability requirement --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment/Suggestion Perhaps this article should be renamed/moved to something like "Police harassment of online author Phil Sandifer." The story is compelling on its own and would not suffer the requirements of WP:BIO. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Then it becomes an article about a minor, one-off news story. Should every home invasion or convenience store robbery get an article too? Fagstein 19:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. If he wasn't notable, it wouldn't take 50 people to say so. Stephen B Streater 19:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- He's getting a lot of attention because he's known within Wikipedia. That doesn't make him notable outside the bubble here. Fagstein 19:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- He certainly is notable within Wikipedia. Outside of it, however, he is not, and so should not have an article. --Rory096 20:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- keep this article please it is notable enough here Yuckfoo 19:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- It is certainly notable enough on WP, but not notable in the real world. --Ezeu 20:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep per Stephen B Streater. He was in the news. Also, it would be best to keep as large of a record of Brandt's activities as possible. jgp 19:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- This is an encyclopedia, not brandt-watch.org (you can found that one if you like to!). Brandt itself is an Internet personality of minor significance, whose opinions on various topics do not merit a discourse in an encyclopedia. If this article is to be kept, then at least Brandt's comment about Phil should be edited out from this article. jni 06:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This is non-notable. One person being brought in for brief questioning does not necessitate an article. Danaman5 21:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete We aren't going to going to have articles for everyone for whom there are verifiable 3rd party sources about being investigated by the police, are we? TheGrappler 23:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This is an interesting story. I'm glad it was brought to my attention and would like to know the eventual outcome. However, unless it leads to Lucky Phil being found guilty of murder, he's simply not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. As many people have said, it's merely a short-lived local news story. The article is more than it warrants. --Jacknstock 02:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, minor BrokenSegue 02:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable. Neurillon 03:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 04:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn. Tintin (talk) 05:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Masterjamie 09:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. This is feeding the Wikipedia Review trolls. JFW | T@lk 11:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity, non-notable. -- Dragonfiend 13:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. This article is highly inappropriate and should be deleted. Hdtopo 15:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipediacruft. A minor news story. If he weren't a Wikipedia editor this AfD would get three "delete, nn-bio" votes(AfDisNotAVote) and we'd be done with it. Open any newspaper and you'll find more column inches than this devoted to nn people. Got Police Blotter? (Hilarious reading, btw.) Weregerbil 15:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:BIO. - FrancisTyers 15:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, minor college prank, made locally newsworthy by over-zealous security officers. Nothing of encyclopedic value so far. Zocky | picture popups 15:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete self-referential, (luckily) minor incident. Lukas (T.|@) 16:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Octopus - Nothing against you personally Phil, but I don't feel that you are sufficiently notable at this juncture. Now if you sue the police for attempting to violate your fifth amendment rights and it goes to the Supreme Court, then you get an article (hint hint). --Cyde↔Weys 17:43, 31 May 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.
A non-profit ran by unpaid volunteers who completely paid out of pocket to raise awareness and money for charity, unfortunate however since several "profiting" internet radio stations are allowed to post information under "internet radio" as well as plenty of listed companies but placement is obviously selective in 'fairness'.--Phylum 17:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- 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. Royboycrashfan 
01:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Star Wars: The Clone Wars & Tetris Worlds
It should be deleted because the article is straightly taken from the article, Star Wars: The Clone Wars and most likely using the copy and paste method. Also, no one could see this article except for me and that user who created it. Weirdy 21:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Talk to me... if u dare!!!
- Speedy Delete. per nom. 220.233.30.154 21:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC).
- Speedy Delete. per nom.--Nick Y. 22:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per nom. --Arnzy (whats up?) 23:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, these two games were apparently bundled at one time according to Gamefaqs. However, I'm not sure that's worth a seperate article, and certainly not this version, which is why I remain neutral right now. BryanG(talk) 03:48, 27 May 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.
- 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 —Whouk (talk) 08:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rose Pendleton
 |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using
|
Non-notable, vanity bio; does not match Wikipedia:Notability requirements. No IMDB.com profile, and the only relevant Google hits were a self-run official website, Myspace, and online petition for said person to get a certain part Fabricationary 22:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom--Nick Y. 22:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete.
Based on just the text of the article, all roles to date are an undisclosed commercial, home movies, model "bookings" and starring in a short film, which returns one google hit ([38]) to her myspace page noted by the nominator.Delete as copyvio. See http://rosependleton.com/biography.php --Fuhghettaboutit 23:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete.
-
- Comment. Biography is no longer a copyvio. -- Loserkidemx3
- Don't Delete Rose no longer runs her official site, she did last year but got way too busy this year. It's run by someone else. The biography was taken from her official site which is not run by her and therefore cannot be vain, which I looked up and you called Rose conceited. Actresses have MySpace's now days. Rachel Hurd-Wood has an official one why can't Rose? It doesn't look like it's ran by her as it's all done in thrid person. Besides Skandar Keynes is running his official site. Skye Sweetnam used to run her official site. Whats wrong with people running their own official sites? She really is an actress with those upcoming projects. IMDb.com doesnt have a lot of people listed. I think you should leave the page alone. --Loserkidemx3
- Regardless of who runs her official site, she does not match the guidelines listed in Wikipedia:Notability (people). Until she does, she cannot have a Wikipedia article. Fabricationary 23:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. The above don't delete vote is from author of article.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Yes, I wrote the page, because I am a fan of Rose. The movies have official sites, why don't you go look. Rose has fansites you can visit, no, they are not run by me either. And I actually never got to finish the page, I am still working on it so it looks more legit.--Loserkidemx3
- Don't Delete Rose is a kind, considerate person. She's not vain or conceited. Plenty of celebs run their official sites or myspaces... why can't she? It's not necessary to delete her page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.110.214.2 (talk • contribs) .
- Delete a bunch of home movies a role in a podcast that hasn't been produced yet and a single unverified movie that seems to be a pipedream of a college student (c.f. WP:NOT) mean Ms. Pendleton is not yet notable. No doubt once her career flourishes she will have an article written about her, but until then she probably should not be covered in Wikipedia. Sorry, Gwernol 23:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I provided links to the official sites for her films in the past biography, unfortunately I was forced to rewrite it. Zombies Ate My Prom Date —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Loserkidemx3 (talk • contribs) .
- Unfortunately this movie hasn't been produced yet, let alone been distributed and gained some level of recognition (like reviews in a major local or national newspaper). Being in an independent movie that's under development doesn't impart notability. Unless I've misread the significance of Zombies Ate My Prom Date? Gwernol 23:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- It states that if the person has a large fan following. Rose has fansites on her. you can visit one Rose Online the owner is on a hiatus, but thats Rose. There are more as well.
-
- Comment The "fan sites" rose-pendleton.net and rosependleton.com both show in Whois as being owned by, you guessed it, Rose Pendleton herself. Fan1967 13:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Don't Delete Rose is very talented. She should be a part of Wikipedia so other people can realize how good of an actress she is. Just take a look at http://rose-pendleton.net and you will become a fan for certain.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.125.213 (talk • contribs) .
- Delete. DVD+ R/W 23:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Don't Delete Don't delete Rose's wikipedia page! She deserves one for the hard work she puts into her films. They may be small but every actress has to start out small and then grow!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.252.52.5 (talk • contribs) .
- Delete. Not yet sufficiently notable for Wikipedia (but maybe one day). Zaxem 00:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. If she's that good an actress and that great a person it's my hope she one day is notable enough to earn a page. But that day's not today. Voice of Treason 00:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom as an nn bio. -- Kicking222 00:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. We can add her back when she becomes famous and has some reliably verifiable information about her we can reference with an article. Fagstein 02:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn bio. -- MarineCorps 02:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Very Strong Delete Why very strong rather than just delete? Because there is essentially nothing on the page, what little is there makes it clear that there is nothing notable about this person and that her supposed notable undertakings have yet to occur. I'm gonna write a Nobel Prize winning book... some day. Can I have my WP page now? Ha! Didn't think so. Comments by her fans make it clear that the purpose of the page is promotional / advertising / vanity. Ande B 03:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Extremely nn. Actress and every single role fails IMDB search. These days even the lowest-budget indy works make it to IMDB. These don't appear to have been seen by anyone. Fan1967 13:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Sorry, she is not notable enough yet. Perhaps someday she'll be big, not playing "Yearbook Girl #1" in a small indie film. Grandmasterka 03:47, 28 May 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.
