Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Stephan Kinsella 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My page was not put up as any retaliation. Rather, having seen the delete debates for the Tom G. Palmer article, I looked into exactly what the biography criteria where, at which time I realized that my earlier bio entry should never have been deleted.

Several months ago someone put up my bio entry (I cannot remember who, but I did not know him or have anything to do with it). My page was put up for VfD, and User:Willmcv, among others, voted to delete it, for vanity, and non-notable. It was not vanity, as I did not publish it.

Now, I have since learned several things. First, The Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies states who is "notable" enough for a wiki biography entry. Given the critieria, it is clear my entry should not have been previously deleted. Note, e.g., it says:

Biographies on the following people may be included in Wikipedia. ...

• Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more.

Well. I don't need to list my legal and libertarian publications yet again, but I have easily exceeded these, many times. A glance at these sites will make this clear. Moreover, there are "Alternate tests" listed that would suffice:

Other tests for inclusion that have been proposed include:

• The professor test -- If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor, they can and should be included.
• Verifiability -- Can all information in the article be independently verified now? (some say) 10 years from now?
• Google Test -- Does the subject get lots of hits on Google or another well known search mechanism?

Oh, easy. Google turns up hundreds of entries (actually, 19,900, at last count). The info can easily be verified. I'm more well known and more published than the average college provessor, so my entry "can and should be included."

In addition, in 2002 I ran, unsuccessfully, on the Libertarian Party ticket for Judge, Texas Court of Criminal Appeal (the highest Texas state court for the appeal of criminal matters), receiving over 70,000 votes.

Also--note, I and one of my IP publications is mentioned in the Wiki Intellectual Property entry; and in the Wiki Libertarian_theories_of_law entry.

True, the rules on Wikipedia:Autobiography autobiographies</a> is that they are discouraged; but they are not banned. A couple of comments about this. First, the info I put up is easily verified. Second, an entry was originally put without my involvement; given that I satisfied then as I satisfy now several criteria for "notability," it should never have been deleted. Had I been aware of these clear rules back then, I would have pointed it out, but the deletion of my entry clearly violated the rules listed above.

Finally, the policy ought to discourage anonymously-posted biographies even more than it discourages self-posted (auto)biographies, since someone can post an autobio anonymously, without being honest about it. Tom G. Palmer's entry is not being deleted (yet), even though it was created anonymously, and appears to very likely be an autobio.

All I ask for is that Wiki editors (a) act consistently; and (b) apply the promulgated and established rules. Nskinsella 18:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The criteria for deletion aren't accurately described as "the promulgated and established rules". Individual editors can vote on bases that differ from the guidelines. For example, I personally believe that the criteria concerning scholarly authors are too restrictive. I believe we should keep an article on anyone who's written a serious nonfiction book. If I had noticed the original VfD, I would have voted "keep" on that basis. To be consistent, I must acknowledge that other editors can consider that guideline too permissive, and can vote to delete something based on their own views of notability.

Another existing guideline, one I agree with, is that the admin who evaluates a VfD "can disregard votes . . . made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article." Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus Your suggestion on your blog that people "stop by and vote" on the Palmer article serves only to waste your readers' time; it's likely that their votes will be ignored. The tabulation is done by a human being who has some room to exercise discretion. That procedure creates its own problems of possible inconsistency and bias, but it does mean that ballot-stuffing efforts (yes, that's what your blog passage is) are relatively ineffective. JamesMLane 15:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I should have only asked *experienced* or existing Wiki users to take a look and make up their own minds. --Nskinsella 21:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Correct -- except that the term is "Wikipedians".  :) JamesMLane 22:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Your reply reminds me--I tried to start an entry for "Wikinerd" today, and for some reason it was deleted inexplicably shortly after I started it. Any idea why? A policy thing? --Nskinsella 03:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you're not allowed to make up words and then write articles about them. -Willmcw 04:07, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

A neologism is only a candidate for VfD not speedy. However, the deletion log cites "redirect to deleted article", if that helps. -Splash 04:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

One of the criteria for speedy deletion is "Short articles that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject." Kinsella's intended article seems to have qualified. See also Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. -Willmcw 04:46, July 21, 2005 (UTC)