Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfredo DeOro

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 was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alfredo DeOro

Alfredo DeOro (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Borderline vanity page a poll player, nothing really useful to keep. --Jeff Defender 20:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Note: Nominator has made few edits outside this topic, and none before it. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep: Nominator demonstrates no problems that are actionable. Whether Jeff Defender (talk · contribs) finds the article to be "useful" personally is of no consequence, and there is less than zero evidence of vanity, especially given that the subject of the article has been deceased for quite a long time. Subject is clearly notable, as a decades-running world champion in more than one cue sport, and was inducted into the Billiard Congress of America Hall of Fame in 1967, one of the very few non-Americans to ever receive the honor. DeOro is one of the billiards legends. The article is a bare stub and needs wikifying and expansion, but this AfD is quite improper, as the facts in the stub are sourced, and notability is beyond question. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Something else is off here; was this AfD filed properly? Hours after its creation it still does not appear at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 14. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment i fixed the problem, The afd is now in proper format and it is listed. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep in spades De Oro is undoubtedly one of the top historical figures in all of billiards, among the ranks of Hoppe, Greenleaf, Mosconi, Crane, Etc. Mentioned in or the subject of at least 284 articles in the New York Times archive [1] (actually more if you use alternate spelings). You can look anywhere; 60 results for Google books [2]. Suggest that nominator withdraw nomination and spend some time learning process before nominating material such as this.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as per SMcCandlish Bencherlite 01:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Find sources: Alfredo+DeOro — news, books, scholar More evidence. Find sources: Alfredo+de+Oro — news, books, scholar Yet more evidence. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: It's gets worse - this is a actually a WP:POINT violation by a WP:SOCKpuppet, likely of 68.237.229.68 (talk · contribs), and of Karim Prince1 (talk · contribs), and Jbl1975 (talk · contribs), among others that an admin could dig out of a deleted talk page. See User talk:Jeff Defender and edit history (not to mention the username...) Jeff got his pet non-notable WP:WEBsite speedied, and rather than try to understand why has lashed out. The user's history consists of nothing but the following actions: getting a vanity article speedied (was defending it in talk under another username, by own admission, and clearly is not a newbie and likes to cite obscure WP essays at people in defending his WP:COI article), adding blatant WP:SPAM here, trying to delete the speedy tag under one username or another but got caught, and meanwhile attacked this random stub, using the same "vanity" label he lost his wikispam to. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but shouldn't we assume good faith? NoInsurance (chat?) 14:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I did AGF, as evidenced above. I responded to this as a legit but misguided AfD, addressing only policy points about the article and the AfD. I then did research, after admin smart person Malevious noted the weirdness of the user's history (immediately after the nom statement, up top), and that research conclusively demonstrates that this is a sockpuppet acting in bad faith; there simply is no room to assume good faith any longer. Please read the evidence. I'm not even the first to figure out that this is a sockpuppet, as documented in the sources already cited immediately above. I do not randomly go after users in AfD or anywhere else. If I come to a conclusion of puppetry or any other bad faith claim, I assure you it's after due dilligence and great effort to not have to go there. I spent over an hour researching this one, hoping it wasn't true. Cf. the trying-to-be-helpful comments I initially left for the pseudo-user on its talk page: "If you simply feel (and I would agree) that the article is too skeletal and needs expanding, all you need to do is flag it with {{Expand}} at the top (I've already done that in this case), and someone will get around to working on it. Thank you." I will happily hand-hold new editors. This isn't one. Its a repeat vandal and policy violator, who deletes SD tags, spams, and modifies other people's AfD votes, all documented above. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Still, it may cost you support in your RFA. You accused him of disruptive editing, but he hasn't logged in since he posted his comment on the Golden-Road.net site. You should know that a user posted a link to the page, so new users might log in and comment and state their case. I can see his point, he stated that the article is not notible outside the pooltable fandom. NoInsurance (chat?) 23:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• This argument emphatically does not belong here. Responding at your user talk page. Other than the last bit, which is actually about the article: Please read WP:BIO. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:19, 15 February 2007 (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.