Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Haddad

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. Owen× ☎ 00:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Haddad

I originally tagged this as db-bio, but that tag was quickly removed and numerous contributions were made to the article by several other accounts and IP addresses (though both IPs and registered accounts have only contributed to this article on one article related to it). I still fail to see how this article fits WP:BIO; the musical release cited appears to have been self-published (no entries on Amazon or AllMusic.com). Winning a spelling bee doesn't quite cut it either. Jasmol 20:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• "Why Does God Bring People into Our Lives" is an important body of music, even though it is comprised of cover songs. It is well known thoughout various musical communities I participate in. The album is commonly described as a brilliant compilation that is clearly genre defying and highly creative. Furthermore, the "Democratic Fascist" website is often cited in political discussion and is the cause for great debate on both sides of the political spectrum. Michael Haddad is undenaibly a highly progressive thinker whose talents span and push the boundaries of music, politics and popular culture. Removing this article would go against the very principal of Wikipedia and serves absoltuely no purpose. Detractors would be much better off spending their time contributing to society and culture the way Mr. Haddad has opposed to wasting energy on this battle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.175.11 (talk • contribs)

• I have definitely heard of the album from multiple unrelated people. Same with the website about Hannity. First saw it on Fox News Channel.
  • Please sign your comments. Besides, you created the article, so can you plesae explain exactly why he is notable? --Spring Rubber 21:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:BIO, and it loses more credibility since the author removed the Afd template. --Spring Rubber 21:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• I think he's important because of the album and controversial website. --Thesham69 21:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The page that the album title links to contains the heading "the pulitzer prize winning musical masterwork." Do tell. Jasmol 21:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Clearly the album is satirical. I mean, it's a cover album. But I've heard about it from multiple unrelated people. Including people at a Simon concert. --Thesham69 21:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Wow. Some of you need to get a life! Why don't you bitch about the Sean Mann bio instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.215.229 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-11 21:18:05 UTC
• Also, the number of hits Fascist website has gotten does not fail WP:BIO stipulation below. Same for album.

  Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more --Thesham69 21:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

  • The unverifiable '10,000 website hits' does not help the WP:BIO criteria. You'll want to refer to WP:WEB for that. The website doesn't even register on Alexa. Also, insulting people here does not help your case. Jasmol 21:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• The insulting comment was made by another user. That was not me. AS for the Alexa thing, I'll look into it. Both sites have over 10,000 hits. --Thesham69 21:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• I see. Democratic Fascist used to be hosted on a different server with its own domain name. It was also most popular around 2001. This probably explains its Alexa ranking. --Thesham69 21:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, it really is a nn-bio (nothing personal). - Bobet 22:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • What is an nn-bio? --Thesham69 22:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Nevermind. I see. Non-notable. I just totally disagree based on the success of the album and the fascist website. --Thesham69 22:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. DeathThoreau 22:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete doesn't meet any of the relevant criteria for inclusion. Capitalistroadster 23:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Michael Haddad's article should certainly remain part of the Wikipedia database in light of the cult notoriety of his music. The album "Why Does God Bring People into Our Lives" was often referenced by Prof. Daniel Eldridge in the class [Computers in Music] at [Virginia Commonwealth University] for its innovative and groundbreaking use of MIDI technology.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.152.41 (talk • contribs)

• Comment As someone who's been using MIDI for musical composition since 1988, I feel comfortable saying that there is absolutely nothing groundbreaking or innovative about the album's use of MIDI. Competent, perhaps, but not groundbreaking. Jasmol 21:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The concept of a non-notable biography in a world which clearly functions according to the law of cause and effect must be rejected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.126.241 (talk • contribs)

In support of including Mr. Haddad's biography on Wikipeida, I should note that his Hannity website is referenced in Amherest College's class Pop Culture and the Blogosphere--undeniable proof of his intellectual excellence. Kathryn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.157.6 (talk • contribs)

All of you naysayers fail to recognize what it is really at work with this Michael Haddad. What we are dealing with is the birth of a Renaissance Man. Just like those before him, who were ridiculed for thier thought-provoking ideas that pushed the boundries of the human intellect, Mr. Haddad's work will probably not be truly appreciated until he is dead.

Also, I strongly agree with the assertion above as to the nature of this debate on the grounds of cause and effect. Did Hume teach us nothing? The whole notion of causality is made upon metaphysicaly grounds that are shakey at best. Unless you want to get into the dualistic metaphysics of Kant (well leave the epistemic or ontological debate alone), you simply cannot make such a claim. -johnny j. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.115.97 (talk • contribs)

• Comment The point of Wikipedia is not to find the next "Renaissance Man." All of these (mostly) unsigned arguments on the entry's behalf fail to adequately address the criteria outlined in WP:BIO "I've heard multiple people talking about him/his album" is not a verifiable claim to notability. Many of these anon supporters have his website as a reason for inclusion. The website reffered to has a low (2/10) Google page rank and doesn't register on Alexa, thus failing WP:WEB. Regarding the two points about the website being mentioned in a college class; I've taught classes at a large public university, and I certainly don't think that anything I've mentioned in a class automatically becomes "culturally important." Most importantly, Wikipedia is not intended to be a promotional tool for "up-and-coming" people, bands, or websites. Jasmol 16:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

So how will this be decided? Some sort of straw poll? Looks like there a lot of opinions on both sides of the issue. It's going to be close! --Thesham69 22:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment The decision for an afd without an obvious consensus should be handled by an administrator. Total number of votes is not the only consideration. In this case, nearly all of the 'keep' votes have been written by anonymous users who have not contributed to any other Wikipedia articles or discussions; draw your own conclusions from that. (References: Wikipedia:Deletion_process and Wikipedia:Deletion_policy. Jasmol 23:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what conclusion to draw. All of the up votes are coming from different IP addresses. If we don't count their votes as much as others, aren't we implicitly saying that some people are more equal than others? Is this really the kind of message we at Wikipedia want to be sending? --Thesham69 23:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment When a bunch of anonymous users come out of the woodwork to participate in an AFD debate, my first suspicion is that support has been solicited via email or a web forum. Wikipedia calls this meatpuppetry. Jasmol 23:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn-bio. Wow, my eyes, my ears.... I can't mention how "interesting" this research was. If I had to guess, this is simply a hoax article being played on an unsuspecting math teacher. The mere cognitive dissonance of a math teacher at a Ceasar Chavez school, blended with a call for a Fascist voting and moral system worshipping Sean Hannity (yeah, because that's very Chavez, no? Maybe it's part of that "right wing" Teach_for_America?)... uhm, yeah. And then set all of that cognitive dissonance to a soundtrack of MIDI "covers" using bad GM (Casio, even) sounds to cover Simon and Garfunkel... wow. Just wow. Ronabop 07:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment While it's sort of unclear, I guess this should be taken as a keep vote? --Thesham69 11:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Apparently, you haven't read Wikipedia's policy on meatpuppetry yet. Jasmol 21:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Michael Haddad is an enduring and relentless inspiration to us all. Although I knew not of his amazing album and website, I have heard of Michael Haddad through the American Teachers Organization, and believe it would be a great dishonor to delete this page from the annals of Wikipedia. Personally, as a person who can never remember whether or not the word "pants" begins with a silent "k", I applaud Mr. Haddad's spelling of the word "circus". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.91.254.254 (talk • contribs)

• Comment This IP is registerd to the District of Columbia Public Schools. What an amazing coincidence that the subject of the article teaches there! Jasmol 21:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: The subject of the article teaches at Cesar Chavez Public Policy Charter School. Although the DC Public School and Charter School Systems are apparently not worth Jasmol's time or energy, they are distinct. If the IP address is registered to a DC Public School, it does not come from Chavez. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariamoser (talk • contribs)

• Comment Regardless, it's still rather obvious that the only comments supporting this article are coming from meatpuppets. Your brief contribution history fits that pattern. Jasmol 22:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how or why anyone feels the need to make ad hominem attacks in the course of this dialogue? Whether one teaches at a public school or at a public charter school, one is in fact a teacher, not a meatpuppet. There is no need for this to get ugly now. --Thesham69 22:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. I also disagree with advertising this discussion in the body of the article itself. I think the policy of avoiding self-references should be brought into count here. -- Francs2000 14:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Demiurge 16:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete obviously. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, or, failing that, corral somewheres. Mackensen (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability not established.--Sean|Black 20:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I must take issue with Wikipedia's rejection of the democratic ideal. There will be no vote? What sort of message does this send our troops currently in the midst of a bloody fight for freedom in Iraq? If Wikipedia ultimately "elects" to muzzle this debate on the advice of an unelected few, I will be forced to take my article to a competing open source encyclopedia that values such abstruse concepts as majority rule. Have we forgotten the fate of Marie Antoinette in her rejection of progressive reform? --Thesham69 02:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Wikipedia has never been based on a democratic ideal. It is closer to a meritocracy, where the value of somebody's contributions often determines their amount of impact in a given discussion. Admins are given a higher level of authority as determined by their value (as percieved other project members). As far as Iraq goes, you might find it interesting to note that this is not an american encyclopedia, it is an english speaker's encyclopedia, so we likely have some Sunni/Baathist editors who are currently fighting in a bloody fight for freedom *against* the americans in Iraq. Ronabop 05:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:BIO, meatpuppets everywhere --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 00:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment As Wikipedia has been officially declared as reliable as Brittanica by CNN today, and because Mr. Haddad is, in fact, found in the Encyclopedia of Brittanica, wouldn't Wikipedia be, say, less than, for not including him?----Yourmomma —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.91.254.254 (talk • contribs)

• Comment I'd love to see a scan of the page in E of Brittanica with Mr. Haddad's entry, mom. Jasmol 20:07, 16 December 2005 (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.