Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edmond Wollmann

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. Rossami (talk) 00:57, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edmond Wollmann

This is a well-written article on a non-notable topic. Wollmann is a persistent but otherwise non-famous net.kook who haunts alt.astrology, much in the same vein as Arthur T. Murray (comp.ai.*) and James Harris (sci.math). Articles on the latter two were recently deleted as being non-notable, so for the same reasons I think Wollmann's article should be canned. Psychonaut 19:29, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• delete I wrote about 90% of the article as it currently is. To see why, just look at the version that was originally uploaded. At the time it seemed wiser to edit for NPOV than VfD and risk drawing a few more Usenet trolls onto VfD. But as the nomination is out of my hands now I happily support the proposal to delete. Wollmann just isn't that notable. --WikiWikiWiki 20:16, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • You are to be applauded for that. Do you care to turn your talents to pickup (seduction)? ☺ Uncle G 23:11, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
• Strong Delete I basically agree with Psychonaut's assesment of this one. I give the author congratulations for managing to wring out an NPOV article on this topic. But posters in message-board and usenet flame wars are not necessarily encyclopedic unless also famous for something else. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:24, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Marginal keep. Google turns up over 4300 hits on this individual and he appears to be notable. "net.kook" in itself is an unnecessary and POV remark. GRider\^talk 20:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The article as it stands doesn't use that appellation anywhere, however. Uncle G 23:11, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
  • That "net.kook" is "POV" is completely irrelevant to this discussion: (1) I am not proposing that the article should be deleted because he's a kook, but rather because he's a non-notable kook. (2) Call him what you will, Wollmann is widely regarded as a kook, and that seems to be his only claim to fame. Psychonaut 10:35, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Looks like a delete to me. -R. fiend 23:01, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There are lots of people around who argue on Usenet. To really stand out from the crowd, a person has to be exceptional. This one isn't. Starting one's own religion and declaring onesself to be god by advertising it in the newspapers is exceptional. Changing one's name to match one's theory of the universe is exceptional. Creating a newsgroup (in the "alt." hierarchy) and having perennial arguments simply doesn't cut the mustard. Uncle G 23:11, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a guide to Usenet minutiae. —Korath (Talk) 23:16, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- DCEdwards1966 04:11, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
• The first-rate article is wasted on such a trivial subject. Delete. -- Hoary 05:38, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-written article. Not anymore or less notable than Sollog, which was voted a keeper in vfd. Gamaliel 06:01, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd agree that "Sollog" isn't notable (I voted to delete that), but this guy seems even less notable. "Sollog" took out ads in newspapers as well as spamming his way into minor notoriety and ridicule. For Wollmann, it's spamming alone. Or is he also notable in some way I have overlooked? -- Hoary 06:25, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
• Keep, as the individual's notoriety extends beyond usenet. Flawiki 16:51, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Strong Keep, as the deletion criterion are not met. As the term is customarily used in a VfD, an article deleted for lack of notability is shorthand for saying the article is not capable of becoming encyclopedic. Mere votes on perceived notability of a usenet persona and the present state of the article are insufficient. The test is whether or not the subject article meets the standard set forth in the deletion policy. The deletion policy requires that the voters test the potential of the article to become encyclopedic, not the potential of the article to be prematurely strangled in the cradle.

Sufficient predecent is recorded on WP for at least one far less notable person to overcome a VfD. For ex., the article on Elizabeth Hawkins-Whitshed is recorded as a WP precedent as fulfilling the "encyclopedic" requirement even though the only notable achievements of the individual are apparently that she had 7 wp-independent google hits, wrote a book, climbed a mountain in a skirt, and died.

Finally, an appeal. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. What may seem trivial to some merely because usenet a kook may be involved, even if kept, will not displace article of greater importance. The voting here is not a zero-sum game. Flawiki 02:05, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(the comments below were in in reply to my initial comments stamped Flawiki 16:51, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC))

• • Beyond usenet to where? -- Hoary 00:53, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
    • Real life. eg., to Washington State, where allegedly the person was asked not to return to correspondence school. To the guy's undergrad junior college, where the sysadmin was allegedly threatened by the subject. Allegedly because who knows how reputable what we read on the net is, be it on the web where it earns prima-facie credibility, or usenet, which appears to lack the same (perfunctory) credibility as a web article. Is the different treatment a function of transience? Flawiki 01:30, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Regardless of whether these are true, I don't think it's notable to be kicked out of college or to tangle with a sysadmin. —Korath (Talk) 02:02, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
        • I respect your opinion. In my experience, getting kicked out of one correspondance school having previously threatened an admin at another school -- in person -- are extraordinary. Flawiki 02:53, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Within our usual standards of notability (Archimedes Plutonium, Time Cube, Empire of Atlantium, The Best Page in the Universe, etc.). Gzornenplatz 02:06, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I voted to delete Sollog, too, and this spammer is even less encyclopedic than that one. Wyss 08:23, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable from what I can see. Jayjg | (Talk) 01:15, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP. Wollmann IS notable. You WikiMasters have blanded and homogenized and cut out all the insane crap he's pulled for the sake of being NPOV. Is that like making sure to print what lousy neighbors Ted Bundy had, for the sake of "balance"? We are talking about a man who has *admitted* to killing a child. No other Usenet kook has boasted of this as some sort of accomplishment. He has won more Usenet Kook Awards than any other net.kook. Of course it isn't notable if you don't mention it. For sheer longevity ("10 years now!"), accounts lost, censorious activities, net abuse, and legendariness, Wollmann is indeed a notable net figure.Wollfan | (Talk) 02:28, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: 126.169.83 ("Wollfan"), you've made no contribution to that article either with from that IP number or with the name "Wollfan". Now's your chance: rewrite the article to make this person sound notable. Meanwhile, he just sounds like an abnormal pain in the ass. Has he been convicted for homicide? That would be notable -- if he were already notable for something else. Or does he just pretend he's killed a kid? That's unusual, but I believe it's not rare. And I can make no sense of your comments that "Of course it isn't notable if you don't mention it". Mark Beyer, Charles Burns and Nicolas Bentley don't get their own articles on Wikipedia (or didn't the last time I looked), and this in no way makes them non-notable. (They're very notable; it's just that nobody had got around to writing articles for them.) -- Hoary 07:43, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

• Comment. WHAT??? The article on James Harris was deleted??? How did I miss that? This is absolutely inappropriate. Looks like an another candidate for User:Grue/Undeletion. Was it at James Harris (troll) or what? Any information would be appreciated. Grue 16:08, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  It was James Harris (sci.math). Here is a mirror of the article. Gzornenplatz 03:52, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable "net kook". Megan1967 23:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Net kook that does not deserve a page.CiaraBeth 21:52, 26 Jan 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.