Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Plank

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. --Ezeu 09:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Plank

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone 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 among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

This article was already speedied once by Luigi30 as non-encyclopedic. However, since the page's creator disagrees with the its deletion and has just recreated the page, I am bringing it here for greater community discussion. The article is about a 19 year old who owns Wrongplanet.net (Alexa rank 167,052}. The article deals mostly with the minutiae of this teenager's website. As both the website and the person seem to have notability problems (as well as problems with reliable third party sources) I am recommending delete. --Hetar 17:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Alexander Plank is one of the most visible members of the online autistic community, widely know both by people with asperger's and by the friends, parents and significant other's of people with asperger's. --PeterMackenzie 18:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn bio. A stub on wrongplanet.net seems more suitable, though, it's mentioned in several legitimate articles [1], assuming they're not planted there by vanity editors. -Obli (Talk)^? 17:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• I would also like to argue that the page should not be deleted. The website in question is controversial within the online AS/autism community, and the individual concerned has had a significant impact on how the community is viewed through his actions - he has a high level of visibility and some notoriety within the AS/autism community. Leaving the article online to be edited and improved would be providing a source of information about the affair which is not otherwise available online, and would allow the author the opportunity to verify his research. I urge you to recategorise the article accordingly. --Duncvis 18:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.173.194 (talk • contribs)

• Note: This user does not exist, it is actually an anonymous editor

• Keep and move to Alexander Plank. His resume [2] indicates nobility via WP:BIO for his appearances on Good Morning America and Geraldo at Large, as well as claims to be quoted in various books on Asperger's. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 17:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and STRONG clean-up if kept This article is... well, it's pretty terrible. The author attempts to assert notability by saying that the subject applied to be a WP admin! Oh my lord! He's more important than Einstein! And you know what else we need? A list of people who have been banned from posting on a barely-notable web site! Intense sarcasm aside, this article, in my opinion, barely fails to qualify for inclusion in WP, and it needs to be so heavily edited that it might as well simply be deleted, anyway. In addition, since it is recreated material that was previously deleted, it could just as easily be speedied again. -- Kicking222 18:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It should definitely be kept. It is a good biography for one of the "leaders" of the AS community. Just because you don't have AS, does not mean this isn't important. ^^^^QuirkyCarla (forgot to sign)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.68.206.77 (talk • contribs)

• Note: This user does not exist either, it is actually another anonymous editor

• Delete per nom. Not only is this article a mess (and just this side of an attack page, come to that), not only are the sole sources for his "guest appearances" his own resume, not only is this "well-known" person quite faceless in actual fact (excluding the two websites he runs himself, he has exactly five unique Google hits), the recreation of this page is editor's sole contribution to Wikipedia, other than asking on the Talk page how he can bring more outsiders into the debate. If Mr. Plank was genuinely well-known in the Asperger's community, surely someone would have heard of him other than on his own websites? RGTraynor 18:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC#)
• Delete WP:NN not verifiable. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. What I see here is a heavily POV article about someone who has annoyed a bunch of people on Wikipedia (which would definitely not make him unique or notable) and also on another website which is itself non-notable. I see no evidence, or even assertion, really, to support his "leadership" within the AS community. Fan1967 18:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unverifiable, unencyclopedic, not notable (includes a list of people banned from some website?) Use of sockpuppets is also not a good sign. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Only verification of notability I could find is already in William Freund. A Plank just seems to be a webmaster of a forum Freund posted on. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 19:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to find people who know all about him, try any of the following websites:

http://gestalt.as4us.net/phpBB2/index.php

http://www.intensitysquared.com

http://www.onthespectrum.com/board/index.php

http://pearlsofwisdom.forumup.com/

http://www.stimmy.net/aspietrash/index.php

http://www.duncsdrivel.biz/

http://www.neurolands.com/index.php

Alex is the fulcrum of much of the online asperger's community. He's had a great deal of influence in shaping the community since 2004, but lately, his influence has changed from constructive to destructive, and since he's taken to manipulating information on his site and taking advantage of the generosity and gullability of many people with AS, it's important to have a independent source on him, to which the entire community can contribute.

The people contributing annonymously at the moment are from that community, and are contributing soley because it's an Alex Plank article, rather than due to any experience with wikipedia, thus the problems with their signitures and the newness of their accounts. They are not sockpuppets, and each one has their own identity on those sites, with long posting histories. PeterMacKenzie 19:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment If you have evidence to support your claims, you will need to provide specific citations in the article. I can 100% guarantee you that no one here is going to spend hours combing through a bunch of forums that we've never heard of, trying to find it. Second comment: Basically your second paragraph above sounds a lot like "We need this article so we have a place to attack him." If, in fact, there is a large online AS community, it would seem that there have to be better places for you to post your warnings about him. Fan1967 19:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete borderline speedy at NN-bio. --Bachrach44 19:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per RGTraynor. Gwernol 19:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with clean up and move to Alexander Plank. Alexander Plank is well-known in the Autism / Asperger Syndrome community. Alexander Plank has 1,290,000 hits on Google, and is notable. [3] He appeared on television after the William_Freund incident as a representative of the Asperger Syndrome community and as the owner of a notable Asperger Syndrome website, WrongPlanet.net [4]. Aspens 19:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC) (note: user's second edit)

• Comment -- no, he doesn't; nice try. A directed Google search (with Asperger's, using "Alexander Plank" as a phrase instead of included words, and excluding his own two websites) returns this: [5].

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=Asperger%27s++%22alex+Plank%22+-alexplank.com+-site%3AWrongPlanet.net&btnG=Search

I wouldn't call that significant, nor (even if true) do I call everyone who gets a couple minutes on TV notable. I've been interviewed on TV twice; that sure doesn't qualify me under WP:BIO. RGTraynor 22:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Unless you are Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia activities do not qualify you for main article space. If his Asperger's website are the grounds for inclusion, he should be assessed against WP:WEB and I don't think he meets those standards either. Further, we need reliable sources to meet our verifiability standards and web forums are not considered to be reliable sources. Capitalistroadster 20:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• DELETE Please. Perl 23:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Perl is Alexander Plank. PeterMacKenzie 23:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Although Alex has done alot of things to upset the members of WP.net however I think writing a wiki article about is going a little overboard in my honest opinion. This whole thing has been blown way out of porpotion. WP.net is not as well known as people may think. Whoever wrote this article did so with the sole purpose of attacking Alex. I realize alex has done alot of things to upset the community, everyone needs to keep in mind that he is just a 19 year old kid who made a website. The website just happened to get its 15 minutes of fame due to the William Freund incident. I don't see this article relevant enough to be a wikipedia article. I vote to either DELETE or MERGE with another article such as the one that concerns William Fruend. --69.164.183.81 00:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Jman

Comment His involvement with William Freund is already covered in that article. Or at least it was until 15 minutes ago when Perl removed it. The article under discussion here seems mainly devoted to describing how he's not a nice person on web forums. Hardly worthy of note, and hardly encyclopedic. Fan1967 01:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete, though it is CSD G4, repost of deleted content. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 14:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; unencyclopedic gossip, nn bio, recreation of deleted material. ergot 16:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Clean up and keep, if only to allow for substantial rewriting. Some of the content may well be unencyclopedic, and it needs some editing, but WrongPlanet.net IS a big fish in the online AS/autism community, and Alexander Plank highly visible and notable within it - it is a site which generates several million hits a month and is often surfers first contact with the AS/autism community. As such, I would like to see the article remain to allow time for notability to be demonstrated. I made an anonymous comment yesterday as Duncvis, my nick on those forums - I believed I had already set up a wikipedia account in that name, sorry for any confusion. I am not a sock puppet. Spudboy 18:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Note-This is the users' only edit. should not be counted for the consensus.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 18:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm afraid the way it works is first you get notable, then you get to have articles about yourself. WP:CHILL. RGTraynor 21:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Wikipedia is for encyclopediac knowledge, not personal opinions, and I'm going contrary to the majority of the people who are here and actually know Alex... Also, appologies for this being my first edit under the username, I rarely remember to log in, and my IP keeps shifting due to reformatting of computer... BlackLiger 00:21GMT 06 May 2006

Keep and Edit (author open to editing suggestions). I am the person who submitted this article and i would like to apologize for not signing my name to it. Also, not well versed with your guidelines. But i have been studying them and hope to one day be a positive contributer to your informational resource. My user name is Freedom of Information and i firmly believe that all information should be freely readable and acquired. The reason for this article satisfies that right to information. I believe that the actions of A Plank is detrimental to people with disabilities on the autism spectrum. Evidenced by the people that he has hurt. One of the main issues with Asperger's syndrome is that those who are afflicted do not possess the same social skills as 'normal' people. As a result many have been bullied their whole lives. Forcing them into a life of recluse, and quite saddened lonliness. A Plank is not doing a service to the Autistic community for he is a bully as well. However he has numerous sockpuppets on his own site (which claims to be a support forum for AS/HFA, and uses them to spin his POV. Using members to make money through ads and donations. Eventually he will certainly disenfranchise more people, people who have already had enough bullying and dared to reach out to the world again, but unfortunately found his website. The reason that they find him is because he controls all the information lines. I feel that a deletion of this article would do a disservice to the thousands who visit his website. His PR person actually predicted 10-20 members in the next few years. Being an information resource i would think that Wikipedia would be pro information, and especially when it might do others a valuable service. I would like a chance to edit it and the opportunity to keep it available as an information resource. if we could please move the discussion towards editing suggestions, it would be a true service to the freedom of information.Freedom of information 10:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment We've seen repeated arguments that argue that you need Wikipedia as a place to warn people about him. Sorry, Wikipedia is not free blogspace for attack pages, and that's what this is. Fan1967 14:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

response to comment Never has it been stated that wikipedia is needed as a vehicle to warn people. It has been argued that Wikipedia is a valuable information resource. This is not an attack blog, it is an informational blog. It would also seem like you, the administrators of Wikipedia would also want to know what type of person has an obsession with administatorship on your website. The person who has made repeated attemts under several different aliases to gain power here because of his lust for suppressing information. DO YOU ADMINISTRATORS REALIZE WHAT TYPE OF POWER WIKIPEDIA HAS. I thought that you might take a persons right to know the facts and have freedom to acquire honest information. The article was and remains a strong case of untried internet law. Read it again and look at the facts, you will certainly rue the day that you chose to opt out of internet precidence: copyright issues, internet users personal liberties, money making sites, asking for donations and claiming poverty in doing so (fraud), supressing of information, and bottom line ownership. I have asked and i will reiterate I would like the opportunity to edit the document, not for content, but for perception. BTW- I have Asperger's as well, so i apologise for my lack of social grace.keep it and edit Freedom of information 09:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Many people have tried to become Wikipedia admins through fake identities or dishonest means. He wasn't the first, won't be the last, and most succeed no better than he did. That is an internal Wikipedia issue. It has been, and will continue to be, dealt with internally. It is not an encyclopedic subject for article-space. Fan1967 15:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment -- Beyond that, Freedom, a great many people have the notion that Wikipedia is useful for a great many things that are in fact beyond its explicit purpose. I recommend reading WP:NOT for a list of these erroneous suppositions. It isn't for advocacy, it's not for informational blogging, it's not for "getting the word out," it's not even quite an "information resource." It's an encyclopedia, nothing more. RGTraynor 20:50, 7 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.