Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Dunlap

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (blk-cmp error). – ABCD 20:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Dunlap

Not notable; vanity page. Also looking at the other pages linked to by the Gaming_Horizon article to see if they are similar...

• Note: The page was just a placeholder for me to add more content later when the deletion submitter flagged it, I had just submitted the full version before I saw the deletion vote. Working on too many pages at once, methinks. (My second day as a submitter) Asriel86 03:45, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
• Note (again): Regarding the lack of notability, some staff members of Gaming Horizon are notable members of internet culture. Aaron was the first person to bring hands-on Phantom coverage (including the first ever pictures) to the public, and he is probably GH's top editorialist. I realize some of the other staff members lack notability, so I will hold off on the creation of stub pages for them until they do something interesting =) Asriel86 03:54, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Asriel86 is the subject of the article (despite refering to himself in the third person), these claims are invalid without verification. --bainer 07:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Revising my vote to Keep. (I'm allowed to do that, right?) For this article only; his response makes sense to me. Chaz 04:01, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, you're certainly allowed to do that. Radiant_* 15:57, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
• I suppose I ought to post the obligatory Keep. Thanks for hearing me out. Yay democracy! Asriel86 04:08, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Not only was this never properly listed on vfd, but Asriel86 improperly removed the vfd notice the same day it was applied; this was going to be an independent nomination. Gaming Horizon should be looked at very carefully as well; I'm not nominating it at this time, though I'm sorely tempted. —Korath (Talk) 03:54, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Maybe take a nap? Other than some pointless staff pages that I later admitted I shouldn't have made, I don't see what the problem with Gaming Horizon is. If IGN can have an article, why can't it? And as for this article, I'd be glad to see some outside votes (didn't know it wasn't listed correctly, wondered why it was so inactive), but I'll contribute my obligatory keep. I was planning on adding articles for several gaming journalists in the future, and this would make a poor precedent for the legitimacy of professional journalists (internet ones especially) on a resource so closely connected to the internet and its culture. Asriel86 04:45, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • You already voted above. —Korath (Talk) 07:12, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

• 'Keep', contrary to what people believe, this is not a vanity page. I see not one speck of information that this is a vanity page, and if the "flagger", (not derogatory), could please share some disdinct proof. Tobb 05:01, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Certainly. From Asriel86's user page:

    • Aaron Dunlap - Me. Tee-hee. There was a VFD on it when I first posted it, but it was decided that I am significant enough of a person to have an article. Huzzah!
    • Gaming Horizon - Gaming site I work for

  • Is that sufficient? —Korath (Talk) 07:11, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, it probably isn't, since Asriel86 made the first edit to Tobb's user page: [1] —Korath (Talk) 07:20, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • Quite a vendetta, Korath. TOBB is a different guy, you can check the IPs if you're so interested in trudging through ever back cannal of this site to find all my misdeeds here. If I have to defend every comment I make here, which I dont, I Tobb is someone I know through a forum. Asriel86 15:34, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • Korath has a valid excuse. Guess who edited your article the most in December? That's right, Tobb].--Anonymous Cow 18:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • That is incorrect. Tobb has made one edit on this page, that link highlights the difference between a version from 5 months ago and one from last night. Please don't use skewed evidence against me, I'm getting very sick of being treated like a maluser. The person who edited this article the most in December was ME. I don't know why I'm arguing this anymore. Just delete the freakin article and stop throwing accusations at me and scrutinizing over every last edit I've ever made.
        • And please don't ride Tobb's back from now on, I don't want this elitism to scare him away. --Asriel86 18:56, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC), considering buying a Brittanica now.
          • Oops, I screwed up. I accidentally clicked the wrong link (curr). My apology with that screw up. --Anonymous Cow 19:04, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • You just bought yourself off of my craplist =) I need to go for a walk. --Asriel86 19:09, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Kevin Rector 06:19, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Undecided - Article makes him sound like any schmuck. However, it appears he has written quite a few articles. DDerby 06:51, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity + socks. --bainer 07:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity Dsmdgold 09:45, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. If he's notable enough, someone besides himself will write the article. --Halidecyphon
• Self-serving Comment again, since Korath is turning this into a character arugment. The VFD was added to this article when it was just a stubb that looked like all the vanity pages here, name & birthdate. Once I added some content, he retracted his delete vote. I ASSUMED that if the person who flagged the article in the first place changed his vote and that there were no other delete votes, it would be ok to remove the flag. I guess I was wrong. Also, I guess I should have used an anon IP to contribute this article, as I doubt most bibliographic articles about internet-culture people haven't been edited by their subjects. Sarah Lane, for one. If you're voting delete just because I made a mistake with the tag, then you're doing it for the wrong reasons. If you do want to delete the article, I'd say merge it with my user page. --Asriel86 15:35, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Excerpts from the referenced Sarah Lane: "Sarah is currently dating (a named co-worker)"; external link to "What Sarah Wore" fan site. Barno 02:12, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Eh? --Asriel86 03:46, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or userfy per the above. Not for procedural reasons, but I do not find this particularly encyclopedic. Radiant_* 15:57, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, self-confessed vanity. Grue 16:34, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. android↔talk 17:04, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity. I went back to his articles that he edited and it seems like he was advertising him and his website. For example on The Phantom (game system) article, "On May 12th, 2004, Aaron Dunlap, from the gaming news site Gaming Horizon, posted the first ever pictures here" and "Gaming Horizon has a summary of the Phantom's history published in a two-part series titled Phantom: Rewound. Part one is available here and part two is available here. [Used with permission] *Currently unavailable*" In my opinion, there should be only one journalism site should be mention in that article is HARDOCP.--Anonymous Cow 18:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Where do you get that from? GH was the first place to host pictures and a hands-on preview of the system. Just because the site is getting lambasted as advertisement, it doesn't mean it cant even be referenced. Once the Phantom: Rewound features go back up (they got dropped in a server move), I will link to them in the external links section, since they detail the entire running history of the system. Unless, that is, I'm not supposed to provide valid information if I'm the person who compiled it. I also think that article containing the first pictures of the system is a notable piece of information for Phantom history. I'm fine with excluding that link as it is included in the Phantom: Rewound piece I mentioned before. For cripes sake, you dont have to discount every edit I've ever made because you don't like the ones pertainant to myself -- I built that Phantom page from the ground up; I'm more than a vane advertiser. I don't need to have all my legit contributions removed. --Asriel86 18:35, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Angr/_comhrá 20:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, Gaming Horizon itself is non-notable. RickK 23:03, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not established. Indrian 00:58, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or userfy, vanity. Writing articles on a volunteer basis while still a full-time student doesn't look exceptionally notable—a lot of Wikipedia editors do exactly the same thing.... --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 00:05, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete solely on the grounds that I do not think that the article establishes the notability of the person. Whether they wrote it themselves or not is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. --G Rutter 15:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, nn. VladMV ٭ ^talk 13:26, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.