Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gharlane of Eddore (Pen-name)

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. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gharlane of Eddore (Pen-name)

Gharlane of Eddore (Pen-name) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable Usenet personality. Epbr123 12:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 12:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete it's sad that he (supposedly) died, but the article has no claims of notability beyond posting lots of silly stuff to a message board. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment not at all "silly stuff." Gharlane's knowledge of science fiction was, to coin a phrase, encylopedic, and he never hesitated to share that knowledge with questioners. Jeh 07:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep -- Usenet =/= "a message board"; learn your internet history! Within the context of Usenet history, Gharlane was a prominent figure in his time. His acknowledgement by trade publications such as The Register establish notability in and of themselves. There seems to be a tendency to dismiss online personalities because that's "old hat" now; a reference source like Wikipedia is vital for keeping things in context. --Orange Mike 13:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep -- Sure, Gharlane was so un-notable that The Register devoted a page to his obituary AND another page to revealing his true name. His postings to Usenet were so infrequent that he single-handedly made the automatically generated monthly "list of suspected spammers" several times with hand-composed unique posts (the lists were only looking at numbers of posts per month, not content). This puts him mong the most prolific (at least on a per-month basis) Usenet posters of all time. He's notable! I also notice that the proposer here, Epbr1, has been on an afd rampage lately for "non-notable Usenet personalities," even proposing the Notable Usenet personalities page for deletion. He has been asked to "slow up!" on a similar spree in the past. I propose that ALL of his recent AFDs be summarily rejected. Kids these days don't realize how notable Usenet was. Jeh 16:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notability is established in the article by reliable sources. Frivolous nomination. Tarc 13:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - Frivilous IDONTLIKE nom. Referenced, notable, historically relevant. Why on earth nominate this? Georgewilliamherbert 00:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW, also per other keeps. --Cheeser1 06:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Orangemike and Jeh were two of the main authors of this article. Epbr123 09:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - They're eminently qualified to talk about the subject's notability, then... Georgewilliamherbert 09:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - And Epbr123 is the originator of this afd. (And that of many other "notable Usenet personalities" and of the "notable Usenet personalities" page itself.) So what? Actually this claim is uninformed at best, deliberately misleading at worst. If you look at the "diffs" via the page history you'll find that Orangemike and my contributions to the page are small (no offense meant, Orangemike!). After that, looking at Epbr123's contributions, and this item on his user page, might be informative. Jeh 16:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Concur with Georgewilliamherbert - keep. DS 14:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Epbr123's recent spate of AFDs seems to me to be contrary to the multiple deletion procedure. These AFDs should be collectively rejected on that basis alone. Jeh 16:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The snowball deletes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Conrad show why it would have been inappropriate to nominate them all together. Epbr123 16:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    • WRONG. Multiple related articles should always be grouped together. Otherwise you disrupt Wikipedia by creating an excess of AfDs, and interested parties, particularly those who routinely edit all 11 of these articles, will have to juggle all 11 at once. The result of a combined debate IS allowed to have some delete, some keep, so don't think that you'll miss out on being able to put another notch on your deletion-belt by following accepted procedure. I'd ask that you please learn the deletion procedure before you use it to defend your disruptive behavior. --Cheeser1 17:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Just imagine how messy an AfD would be for these 11 completely different people. I already know the deletion procedure; as you are keen to point out, I do have quite a bit of experience with it. Epbr123 18:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
        • If they're so different, then why were they the subject of all of these AfDs from you in a single day? They are all related in that you found them all on the Notable Usenet personalities page, which you are also trying to get deleted! I'm sorry, but to me it looks as if you're saying "I knew the whole batch would fail if I tried to get it through that way, so I ignored the recommendation and did them all individually." Shouldn't voters for any of these pages be aware of the fact that you've nominated so many other related (in that way) pages in quick succession? I think they should. Jeh 18:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
        • You nominated 11 articles about the same thing, for the exact same reason, on the exact same day. Don't throw a hypothetical "I'm sure it would have been messy" at us. AfDs are sometimes messy. But it's decidedly messier to try to discuss the exact same issue(s) on 11 different deletion pages. --Cheeser1 18:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• comment It would have been even worse to have nominated together. Out of 11 people, some will be more notable than others. The nom was completely right to do them separately. But they should have been spread out a little. It is unfair to do this many at a time--since it is so much easier to nominate than defend, it biases towards deletion. I have previously suggested there be some reasonable limit, like 2 or 3 at a time. It's been rejected so far, but perhaps someone would care to suggest it again. consensus on such things can changes as it becomes more evident how the afD procedure can be abused. DGG (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Gharlane was one of the best known posters on Usenet, well established in several newsgroups, if I'm not mistaken thanked in several author dedications, etc. Also remember: noticability on Usenet is established from Usenet. If we want to cover Usenet and its culture, we need to look at what and who is noticable there first, not just rely on traditional sources --Martin Wisse 09:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I have no reservations with this article as there are multiple reliable sources beyond the bounds of Usenet. We can do without the geocities.com ref though. RFerreira 19:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete* David G. Potter was a Usenet poster who spent a great deal of his work day posting to Usenet newsgroups. He made extravagant claims about his background and accomplishments which have no basis in fact. He claims his pen name, "Gharlane of Eddore" was used with the permission of E.E. "Doc" Smith, although Smith retired from public appearances and public life when Potter was 16. Potter claimed to have published many science fiction stories and screen plays, and to have been a television writer. Although in reality, the only thing he published were two stories shortly before his death. If the article is to be kept on the basis of his reputation, then these exaggerations should also be mentioned. Also, his habit of attacking and berating those on the Usenet newsgroups with whom he disagreed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.41.1 (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Question - is this a content dispute? An article is generally not deleted if there is a content dispute. Instead, you should work to properly source your claims and integrate them into the article. --Cheeser1 11:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment In fact, in the newsgroups he frequented, he was constantly attacked along the above lines. This only contributes to his notability. *grin* Jeh 15:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
      • comment - AGF, Jeh, AGF! This isn't Usenet. --Orange Mike 16:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
        • reply to comment Orange Mike, you are perfectly correct. Mea culpa. I have revised my previous comment accordingly. Jeh 02:53, 11 September 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.