Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Burch (3rd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. W.marsh 01:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ben_Burch
- Previous AFDs can be found at Ben_Burch and Ben_Burch 2. ---J.S (t|c) 15:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 |
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}} |
I'm not a notable person. Period. I apologize to Wikipedia administrators for having to do it this way, but when I listed this article for PROD, the spoiled children over at CU decided that they hadn't had enough fun yet. BenBurch 04:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete - Per nom. BenBurch 04:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete this as a gross violation of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:BIO. This could be deleted under speedy since no claim to fame is made in the article. I actually intended to nominate this article myself. "Ben Burch" as an article has no verifiable secondary claims and, in-fact, none where "Ben Burch" is the subject likely exist. His website might be slightly notable, but not Ben. In addition this article has been flame-bait since the moment of it's conception. Before you voice your opinion here, please take a look at the above policies and make your judgement with it in mind. ---J.S (t|c) 06:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Merge (or delete)The article on Mike Malloy might be expanded to include information about some of that program's regulars and guests. Malloy credits a number of persons at the conclusion of each show, certainly all do not warrent a page in wikipedia. I don't see that an article is needed, or appropriate, but there is some useful information here that would fit in the Malloy article. Obviously, more editing and fact-checking is needed as well, etc. Calicocat 06:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, but close quickly. The person is non-notable and the article was created as an attack page (see earlier versions). Someone has to be slightly more non-notable than this for me to be comfortable with a speedy delete. -- Kjkolb 07:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Also, the page should be protected so that it cannot be recreated. Normally I would not support preemptive protection, but the vandals and sock puppets involved in the article and this nomination makes me think that it is necessary. -- Kjkolb 05:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep. It is a funny case; I tend to believe that the BenBurch who nominated it really is the same person as the article subject. And I also think that it's been used for trite attacks on the person. However, I read Mr. Burch's writing activities as minimally meeting notability criteria, especially under the "author test". Obviously, per below comments, Mr. Burch's opinion has no special weight in regard to his own notability. LotLE×talk 07:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete and protect against re-creation, fails WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:BIO. Very heavily vandalized. --Coredesat 07:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete. Non - notable, or certainly I've never heard of the person concerned (apologies if I'm treading on anyone's toes). Moreschi 09:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete and protect from recreation - I was in two minds whether to close this myself and just speedy the article, but as someone has expressed the opinion that the article should be kept, I think that would not be the right thing to do. The facts that an attack page was refactored into an article, and that it's a troll-magnet, and Mr. Burch's own request (it's not policy, but it is polite to take heed), and that he doesn't actually meet notability criteria to any great extent, all make me think we'd be better off without this page. Proto///type 09:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Ben is quite notable. He is listed as a Notable Member on the wiki article Democratic Underground, he is a noted sexworker's rights advocate, he is a contributor to Adult Video News magazine, and is credited as a correspondant on the Mike Malloy show. He is also well known among both liberal and conservative bloggers. Crockspot 11:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete A7. The article does not "assert the importance or significance of its subject". If his only notability comes from The White Rose Society (website), mention him there. (Quite honestly, I don't see how the website justifies an article either - looking at its AFD, it survived on the strength of meat puppetry and because the nomination was in bad faith. But that's a discussion for another time.) At any rate, BenBurch is correct. Posting on a message board and running a questionably notable website is not a meaningful assertion of importance. The fact that it's a self-request changes nothing. Speedy delete A7. BigDT 12:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. BoojiBoy 13:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as subject does not meet WP:BIO criteria with no precedent towards allowing subject nominated AfD to go forward. This is just one case where the subject happens to be correct; he doesn't meet WP:BIO.--Isotope23 14:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete A7, failing that delete per WP:BIO. Just zis Guy you know? 15:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete under A7, or just plain delete. Webmaster of a site with Alexa rank of 177,352. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. If that doesn't gain consensus, then merge into The White Rose Society (website). Personally, the subject of this article doesn't seem notable. That said, I also can't believe the passion and screaming that takes place over this guy. And here I thought the Bogdanov Affair couldn't be topped around Wikipedia for fun and games.--Alabamaboy 17:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as NN, and attack page. --Aguerriero (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete and protect this has gone on far enough. —Khoikhoi 04:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, again. An AfD listing for an article that's previously survived AfD should link to the prior discussion(s); in this case, they can be found here and here. As to the substance, I disagree with Ben about his notability (and I agree with the comments that the views of the article's subject are entitled to the same weight as anyone else's, no more and no less). My starting point is service to the readers. A significant number of people may encounter Ben's name through Adult Video News or through AAR. They may want to know more about this person; some may encounter both sources and wonder whether it's the same "Ben Burch". JamesMLane t c 05:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- I'm not sure I understand your argument? He's notable because his article would be useful? Outside of a very small community he is completely unknown. Most of his work for AVN us uncredited and unverifiable. Besides, there hasn't been a single article anywhere -about- Ben, so the article has no way to be independently verified from a -secondary- source. That's like a big deal from the standpoint of WP:V. ---J.S (t|c) 15:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- As far as I can determine, the only newspaper articles about me, other than Letters to The Editor I have written and had published, are from the 1970s and involve me winning an engineering competition. I've been interviewed on talk radio a few times, but there are no written transcripts. My contributions to AVN are all editorial and advisory, and do not entail a byline, just a mention in the colophon. If I am notable at all, it is the most minor sort of notability, much like the "Key Grip" from a movie; He gets a credit, but nobody knows who the heck he is. BenBurch 16:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand your argument? He's notable because his article would be useful? Outside of a very small community he is completely unknown. Most of his work for AVN us uncredited and unverifiable. Besides, there hasn't been a single article anywhere -about- Ben, so the article has no way to be independently verified from a -secondary- source. That's like a big deal from the standpoint of WP:V. ---J.S (t|c) 15:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per A7. Ral315 (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Not notable. Writing for a pornography industry magazine doesn't cut it. We'll be having articles on student journalists next. I barely see how The White Rose society is notable either. - Hahnchen 01:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't understand your reference to "a pornography industry magazine". Do you mean that notability based on a publication would depend in part on whether Wikipedians approve of the publication? I assume that, with pornography as with many other subjects, some magazines are important and widely known, while others are obscure. Setting aside for a moment the specific question of Ben Burch's notability, are you arguing that public attention received because of some activities should be discounted because the activities are disliked by some people? JamesMLane t c 15:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- It was a reference to Crockspot's keep vote. Notability is based on the publication, a writer for the Daily Telegraph yes, a writer for a student newspaper, no. - Hahnchen 23:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't understand your reference to "a pornography industry magazine". Do you mean that notability based on a publication would depend in part on whether Wikipedians approve of the publication? I assume that, with pornography as with many other subjects, some magazines are important and widely known, while others are obscure. Setting aside for a moment the specific question of Ben Burch's notability, are you arguing that public attention received because of some activities should be discounted because the activities are disliked by some people? JamesMLane t c 15:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with The White Rose Society (website), this person is somewhat notable, very close to the line I would say. There is so little information in this article I think it can all be merged into the article that his main notability is from. Failing that I would say keep(better to make the mistake of no action than the mistake of action). HighInBC 19:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete while we need more people campaigning for the rights of sex workers, I don't think they all need to have encyclopaedia articles :) - FrancisTyers · 23:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comments
- Moving comments here to keep discussion flowing. Please add "votes" above here and any comments not directly related to the deletion below here. ---J.S (t|c) 06:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. This is, it seems to me, a very strange case. This article has been around for a while, and has been the subject of an extraordinary number of edits---mostly, by the looks of it, vandalism, and the reverting of same. Now, here we have the ostensible subject of the article, asking that the article be deleted because he does not feel that he is notable enough to deserve said article. How, one wonders, are we to even know that this BenBurch is, in fact, the real Ben Burch? Reading the article, which is rather short, the individual in question seems somewhat notable in the field of political blogging and talk radio. This is all very puzzling to me. Can the subject of an article ask that said article be deleted on the grounds that he or she does not feel he or she is notable enough? I feel that I cannot vote on this AfD until some facts are sorted out. ---Charles 05:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- CommentHi, Charles! The article was created in the first instance as a vehicle for personal attack by the trolls who reside at Conservative Underground. These people are well know to vandalize liberal and progressive message boards, and they decided to expand. I listed the article for deletion because it became clear to me that they would never grow up and stop vandalizing it, and people here on Wiki have enough to do trying to get actual work done without having to revert this page endlessly. And I am no more notable than a lot of people who don't have Wikipedia articles. Lets save those for folks you can at least find a newspaper article about, OK? BenBurch 05:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Ben, your slander of CU notwithstanding, in your nomination you say that we children have not had enough fun. Might I remind you of your comments yesterday on the DU Talk page regarding the External Links discussion: "My dear, I've had a lot of serious fun lately. This is quick becoming my new hobby and my model railroad and the live steam locomotive building up in my workshop are gathering dust. I have to monitor the computers here in the studio at all hours from 11 AM through midnight, and so this fills in the time when things are working properly quite nicely." It would seem that you enjoy this activity immensely. Crockspot 12:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Admins here have been made fully aware of your comments there, my dear. Have a nice day, and please, show some maturity and good sense? BenBurch 14:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Well, sweetiepie, I am not certain which of MY comments you refer to, since I have attempted to conduct myself with the civility that is expected of Wiki editors, which is a bit more than you can say for yourself. Have a nice day, Honeycheeks. Crockspot 14:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment' - Pretending not to know is so mature, my Dear.BenBurch 15:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Again with the innuendo, my little box of Nuts n' Honey. I challenge you to point to a single Wiki comment of mine that is out of line. If you are referring to my posts on CU, they are irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is your notability. Adolf Hitler was a disgusting human being, but I would never argue that he was not notable. While I find you personally abhorrant, I am able to separate my personal feelings from my objectivity about your notability. This is something you should learn. I could refer to volumes of your posts on DU which are disgusting examples of hate speech, but they would be irrelevant to this discussion. While blog mentions are not considered here, if you were to count all the mentions of BenBurch, Fister, and Fat Che on CU, FR, and the Dummy Funnies, one could draw the conclusion that you were more notable than the President. You really aren't very good at this Ben. You should spend more time fundraising for your website, and less time causing trouble on Wikipedia. Crockspot 16:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment' - Pretending not to know is so mature, my Dear.BenBurch 15:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Well, sweetiepie, I am not certain which of MY comments you refer to, since I have attempted to conduct myself with the civility that is expected of Wiki editors, which is a bit more than you can say for yourself. Have a nice day, Honeycheeks. Crockspot 14:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Admins here have been made fully aware of your comments there, my dear. Have a nice day, and please, show some maturity and good sense? BenBurch 14:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Charles, of course, is correct. Absent legal concerns, the opinion of the subject of an article merits no more consideration than that of any other editor (in the case that the subject should be a Wikipedian), and the desire of a subject that an article apropos of him/her be deleted in no way militates for (or against, I suppose) deletion (toward which proposition see, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (3rd nomination) and its sundry affirmances); neither does his/her opinion with respect to his/her notability carry any special weight (even where he/she adjudges himself to be non-notable, which determination would tend to be against one's interest, although surely not in situations such as these). Of course, I'm likely to support deletion, believing the subject to be non-notable, but his desire that the article be deleted will not affect my reasoning (and neither will the fact of the frequent vandalism of the article, even as I'm no fan of the CU). In any case, speedy deletion, for which Ben advocates, is surely not an appropriate disposition here. Joe 05:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Joe, of course I don't want to twist anybody's arms, and if people decide I'm really notable, fine, but I think some articles are just not worth the time they waste in terms of people having to keep fixing them. I'm happy for it to stay or go, but I warrant that it will continue to be a lightning rod if it does stay. BenBurch 06:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Reply to first post Techicly speeking the subject of an article has no more say of what goes in it then any other edior on wikipedia (WP:OWN is the policy here). However, Ben as an editor can make the argument that he's not notable under guidelines like WP:BIO with as much weight as anyone else can. ---J.S (t|c) 06:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, if this AfD will reduce the amount of pointless chatter and edits that happen on Wikipedia surrounding Burch/DU/CU related topics, that would be the cherry on the sundae. Take it back to your forums kids!--Isotope23 14:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - That was my goal, Isotope23. I hope it works. BenBurch 15:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, if this AfD will reduce the amount of pointless chatter and edits that happen on Wikipedia surrounding Burch/DU/CU related topics, that would be the cherry on the sundae. Take it back to your forums kids!--Isotope23 14:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Reply to first post Techicly speeking the subject of an article has no more say of what goes in it then any other edior on wikipedia (WP:OWN is the policy here). However, Ben as an editor can make the argument that he's not notable under guidelines like WP:BIO with as much weight as anyone else can. ---J.S (t|c) 06:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Joe, of course I don't want to twist anybody's arms, and if people decide I'm really notable, fine, but I think some articles are just not worth the time they waste in terms of people having to keep fixing them. I'm happy for it to stay or go, but I warrant that it will continue to be a lightning rod if it does stay. BenBurch 06:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Ben, your slander of CU notwithstanding, in your nomination you say that we children have not had enough fun. Might I remind you of your comments yesterday on the DU Talk page regarding the External Links discussion: "My dear, I've had a lot of serious fun lately. This is quick becoming my new hobby and my model railroad and the live steam locomotive building up in my workshop are gathering dust. I have to monitor the computers here in the studio at all hours from 11 AM through midnight, and so this fills in the time when things are working properly quite nicely." It would seem that you enjoy this activity immensely. Crockspot 12:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- CommentHi, Charles! The article was created in the first instance as a vehicle for personal attack by the trolls who reside at Conservative Underground. These people are well know to vandalize liberal and progressive message boards, and they decided to expand. I listed the article for deletion because it became clear to me that they would never grow up and stop vandalizing it, and people here on Wiki have enough to do trying to get actual work done without having to revert this page endlessly. And I am no more notable than a lot of people who don't have Wikipedia articles. Lets save those for folks you can at least find a newspaper article about, OK? BenBurch 05:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment = Alabamaboy, I don't get it either! BenBurch 17:34, 22 June 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.
