Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrozinski

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. Mailer Diablo 09:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mrozinski

It happens all the time. A person who is non-notable by Wikipedian standards creates a website or webpage. To create some traffic, (s)he creates an article here. The vanity page consists of ravings, exaggerations and unverifiable facts. Basic demographics are not included. Next we, Wikipedia editors, start looking for leads about this person, demographics etcetera, for verification, NPOVing and notability. The page becomes a knowledge-base on the person. However, the person does not like his birth-names, birth-date, a linked page with information about the dip in his career and/or other biographic facts and (s)he starts trolling through vandalism, edit wars, sockpoppeting, dumping ridiculous threats of legal action etcetera. In some cases, e.g. Monica de Bruyn, notability is then stretched somewhat to prove the point that the person cannot remove the page and we decide on the content. I have always claimed that this is a wrong course of action. A biography of a non-notable person should be deleted regardless of his behavior. We have not succeeded verifying Mrozinski's "nr 1 hit" in Italy, his implying that he was part of Cats was imprecise and he is not mentioned anywhere in the All Music Guide. I suggest deleting the article for non-notability. gidonb 17:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24/24 World Concert gidonb 18:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monica de Bruyn (2)

Most of the above comments are inappropriate, as the implication is that they apply to the article under consideration and its editor, which is not necessarily the case. See Jimmy Wales on AfD courtesy problem + Another AfD example. I suggest the AfD proposal should stick to the recommended criteria and not extraneous considerations. Tyrenius 01:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Tyrenius, Jimmy Wales' message was to be very careful and that's what I did. Lets take this elsewhere. I think this is important. Regards, gidonb 01:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom gidonb 17:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment in a template and at several talk pages, Mrozinski requested that this article would be deleted. I moved this comment from the article itself: This is Mrozinski, the subject of this article, and I wish this article deleted because several editors keep changing information, adding unauthorized and incorrect information. This is a violation of my rights and privacy and I wish it to be removed. I will have to resort to legal action against Wikipedia and its editors if this abuse is not stopped. Mrozinski 14:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and copyvio of this. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 18:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. What more can be said? Let the man take his ball and go home. GentlemanGhost 19:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Thank you for your "kind" comments. May God have mercy on your petty soul. Please do me a favor and delete this article ASAP. Mrozinski 19:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You are welcome! ;-) Please note that if the AfD is successful, the article and its talk page will be purged. This service page, however, will remain part of Wikipedia. gidonb 19:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Mrozinski 19:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment for the closing administrator: Please note that this user was created today and does not have sufficient votes to participate in the vote. He is, however, the subject of the article and its creator as user:2424. gidonb 19:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Let's delete it the correct way.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 19:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, and don't forget Image:Mrozinski.jpg too. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 20:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nom summed it up pretty well, page author also wants it deleted now.--Andeh 20:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable and unverifiable. -- Kjkolb 20:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Mrozinski 21:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment for the closing administrator: Please note that this has become a forum and as a result, an indictment for the flaws in the system. Allowing anyone to become an "editor" is obviously unworkable, as anyone with access to a PC can change information, give misguided opinions and/or allow themselves to be self-appointed watchdogs of information for the "public good". I feel that gidonb and GentlemanGhost and their ilk have turned Wikipedia into a public forum rather than a source of information. Sorry that this once reliable source has become bastardized, but I suppose that's what happens when you allow access to anyone, however unqualified. Mrozinski 21:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment for Mrozinski: You brought this on yourself by creating the thing in the first place. The "flaw in the system" that allows anyone to be an editor is what allowed you to be an editor. Fan1967 01:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete in the interests of trying to suppress the truth. Hooray for half-baked conspiracy theories as per above comment. Let me suggest just deleting all the comments from the article's creator and keeping his only valid vote. Danny Lilithborne 00:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because of the bullshit as seen above. Wikipedia is no longer a source of objective information. May you all get a life. Mrozinski 00:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  Duplicate vote. I'd also like to point out that it's our insistence at keeping articles like this that anger the subjects and give Wikipedia a bad name. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 01:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn. Fan1967 01:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: just to annoy Mrozinski. Mind you, you can buy his single on ebay.it for a mere €1.60; what does that tell you? --die Baumfabrik 02:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  As you're following prices, you might like to know the promo went for £40.40 [1]. Annoying people is normally considered trolling which can result in being blocked. Maybe you should reconsider. Tyrenius 07:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete What it tells me ("just to annoy Mrozinski") is that you have no life and have too much time on your hands to research someone you think is not notable and that Wikipedia has degenerated into a forum of the bored. Mrozinski 02:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  Duplicate vote. I'd also like to point out that it's our insistence at keeping articles like this that anger the subjects and give Wikipedia a bad name. --M1ss1ontomars2k4

• Comment For the record (pun not intended) the single/EP was/were released in 1979 and is/are described as punk [2] and disco [3]. Mrozinski, don't worry, the way things are going this article will get deleted. However, this is up to the editors. You have put yourself in the public domain and if notability can be established the article will be kept. It would be helpful if you could supply any verifiable source for the #1 hit or more details. And for other editors, please AGF, remain polite and considerate and look at this from a NPOV. The views of the subject are not a consideration to affect the outcome. Tyrenius 07:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Lets all work by the book and do what we are best at: making a great encyclopedia! gidonb 15:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • To all above: None of this would be a problem if you didn't insist on undoing my edits. I have attempted to comply repeatedly by editing and/or deleting information that is unverifiable by your standards. Yet everytime I edit the page, another "editor" comes back and reverts it to pre-edit status. I'm sure that you would not want to be represented by erroneous information (such as my "full name" which is incorrect). Anything that cannot be cited or "proven" I have tried to remove, but "editors" keep putting it back. What is the point of this? I would much rather have the article deleted than to have unacceptable info be replaced repeatedly after I have deleted or changed it. If you take exception to my previous tone of frustration and indignation, imagine how you would feel if you were forced to be misrepresented by people who have no clue as to the facts. When these edits are constantly changed by various "editors", I have no choice but to change them again, and as aresult I get blocked and unable to represent myself or state the facts as they are. I have been insulted, condescended to, purposely baited ("just to annoy Mrozinski"), blocked, banned and otherwise dismissed all in regard to an article that is supposed to be about me. Please, guys, give me a birthday present today and just delete the whole article so we all can use our valuable time by attending to other more important matters. Thanks Mrozinski 22:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I can't promise you that you will get your birthday wish by today, but it should come shortly, probably by Thursday. According the article on the deletion process, it usually takes about five days for a consensus to be reached and appropriate action taken. Since the votes are currently strongly in favor of deletion, I anticipate that the page will be deleted, albeit more slowly than you desire. GentlemanGhost 23:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Happy birthday Mrozinski. Please understand that nothing of all this is personal. We are just doing our Wikipedia chores. Enjoy the day, or at least what is left of it! gidonb 00:36, 6 June 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.