Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brant Secunda

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 was delete - gross COI issues, promotional in tone, blatant advertisement, 4/5 keeps come from confirmed sockpuppets of Nicosec. Rudget. 13:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brant Secunda

Brant Secunda (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Appears to be self-promotion of non-notable individual. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I am also proposing the related article for deletion:

  • Speedy delete both articles as spam. KurtRaschke (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete of second article only (repost of previously speedily deleted spam) - No opinion on first. Exxolon (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete both as spam. Blueboy96 00:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

*Delete both. Certainly exists, as far as Google search can establish, but no reliable sources to verify notability of the organisation or individual. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 00:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Changed opinion to Keep Brant Secunda, delete Dance of the deer foundation - center for shamanic studies per Jeepday below. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 08:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete "Dance of the deer foundation - center for shamanic studies", Neutral on "Brant Secunda", and (this may not be the place to call for this) Block confirmed spammer User:Nicosec. I've been dealing with knocking back what's clearly a self-promotional article back to a stub for several months now, only to have User:Nicosec (Nico Secunda, Brant Secunda's son), the author of the article, come back and revert changes, and spam other articles as well. The only thing that makes me wary of complete deletion is that Brant Secunda is prominently mentioned in the book "Carlos Castaneda: Academic Opportunism and the Psychedelic Sixties" as one of the prime examples of a plastic shaman, and this might actually be a claim of notability from at least one citable source. In any event, the version of the article that Nico Secunda keeps spamming is totally unacceptable and the sooner he is banned from Wikipedia for his repeated spamming, the better. Peter G Werner (talk) 07:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • keep I am the creator of both these articles. I have no idea what brings you (Peter G Werner) to believe that I am Brant Secunda's son! More importantly, I have created these articles with an unbiased view. I know, as many people around the world know, that Brant Secunda is one of the most well known teachers Native American culture and traditions and that his foundation (The Dance of the Deer Foundation) has worked to aid the Huichol Indians for the last 30 years. I believe in itself makes both Brant Secunda and The Dance of the Deer foundation's pages viable on Wikipedia. Instead of continuing to delte this article, why not edit it in order to make it better. Anyone can do the research I did in order to write these articles. I continue to believe that these articles should remain undeleted. (User talk: Nicosec) —Preceding comment was added at 16:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Are you or are you not Nico Secunda? If not, strange choice of username for somebody who's sole account activity has been adding Brant Secunda-related material to Wikipedia. If you are Nico Secunda, you've got a huge conflict-of-interest going on here, and I really think you need to pay attention to what WP:Autobiography says about this. Also, you keep adding spam links to shamanism.com to the Huichol and Shamanism articles, even after repeatedly being warned (by several different users) that this is not appropriate. Look, bub, Wikipedia has rules, and you're consistently violating them. You either need to cease doing this or you need to be banned from here. Peter G Werner (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep would seem to meet WP:N google book brings back 21 hits [1] by multiple authors that support the article in general. Jeepday (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    • It's actually only 18, and some of them are duplicates. --Nlu (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete both Per COI issues, as well as the lack of reliable sources. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 17:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep both I edited both pages after much research in order to make them less biased and clearer overall. I recommend all who commented to re-read them in order to reevaluate. Mathew012345 —Preceding comment was added at 00:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The article has enormous POV problems the way you've written it. Basically, it reads as a publicity release for Brant Secunda. Note that Secunda's status as a "Huichol shaman" is highly disputable. Peter G Werner (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Mathew012345 (talk · contribs)'s 12th edit, with the other edits all having the same edit pattern as Nicosec (talk · contribs). I am labelling the user as a sockpuppet of Nicosec, although closing user is free to disagree with me on that. --Nlu (talk) 06:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep both Having read both articles both before and after the most current changes were made, I know think both are fine. I do not see the articles a publicity releases. They are pretty strait forward. ( I did correct one small grammatical error) Penny
    • User's 9th edit, and all other edits by user were to the same articles edited by Nicosec (talk · contribs), with identical content. I am labelling the user as a sockpuppet of Nicosec, although closing user is free to disagree with me on that. --Nlu (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see any reason for the pages to be deleted. He is well known and cited and written about all over the place. Seems notable enough to me. BobC5678 —Preceding comment was added at 05:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • User's only edit. --Nlu (talk) 06:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. With apparent sockpuppetry galore, if this continues, I may very well unilaterally simply delete and WP:SALT both articles. In fact, I am regretting not having done it before submitting them for AfD. It is apparent now (to me, at least), that Nicosec/sockpuppets is bent on spamming. --Nlu (talk) 06:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I'll also note that a User:Nicky012345 turned up to vandalize my userpage right after I posted about Nicosec's spamming activities on this page. Peter G Werner (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I have started a sockpuppet case here against [[Nicosec and four others. Will add any more if they appear. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:51, 11 February 2008 (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.