Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Glickman

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. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 15:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Glickman

Originally prodded by User:Zetawoof as autobiography. Prod removed, so bringing it here. Original prod could have more accurately noted non-notable autobiography. (Article creator is eponymous). Eusebeus 14:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Deprodded wrongly by a chronic prod remover. Kuzaar 14:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Move to userpage, as this obviously is non-notable in and of itself. -- Kicking222 14:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Cleanup Seems to have held some at least semi-notable positions at Illinois University, so may be worth an article. Needs some serious attention though. Hirudo 15:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, should never have made it this far. San Saba 17:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I prodded this as an autobiography. If this person actually needs an article (which I'm not sure of - the article is too full of pseudo-peacock terms to tell what's notable and what's not), let someone else write it from scratch. Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy to creator. I don't see anything here that meets the WP:BIO criteria.--Isotope23 16:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination. Eusebeus is systematically bringing disputed prods to AfD without regard to merits of dispute. Monicasdude 14:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

And you're apparently voting to keep without "regard to merits of dispute". Eusebeus provided his own reasoning here... calling that bad faith is insulting. --W.marsh 14:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No, he didn't. He just repeated the mantra "non-notable" without giving any explanation of the claim. Calling that "reasoning" is insulting to people who actually reason. Monicasdude 15:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Okaay, so now he's acting in bad faith because he didn't perform up to your standards... I dislike "delete nn" nominations as much as anyone but to call them bad faith is simply incorrect. --W.marsh 15:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, as I noted elsewhere (your RFAr), the person not providing a meaningful rationale for their opinion on the article is you, not the nominator. You posted that comment to 34 articles in 21 minutes... --W.marsh 15:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I don't intend to repeat this on every AfD involving Eusebus and Monicasdude. but I noticed yesterday that Eusebus appeared to be systematically AfD'ing every article that Kappa deprodded, and in many cases citing Kappa by name (a reversal of the Appeal to authority logical fallacy). We would do well to consider the merit of each article without reference to who nominated it and who voted keep. Thatcher131 15:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- JamesTeterenko 23:01, 25 April 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.