Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pariah Burke

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 Delete --JForget 00:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pariah Burke

Pariah Burke (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Extremely aggressive WP:COI wikispammer and WP:single-purpose account whose sole function, so far, has been to violate WP:SPAM by adding promotional links to various articles [1], and to keep creating this same article about Pariah Burke, which has already been deleted previously by other editors on a PROD[2]. The entire historical archive of GoogleNews demonstrates a complete failure of WP:N [3], and while his books do exist, they are little more than tech manuals, and fully fail the notability standards of WP:BK. True, he has given quotes in passing to a few tech publications over the years, but none of these constitutes a source that can be used to meet WP:BIO, since none of the articles is about him; they only contain brief quotes from him. Finally, username indicates WP:AUTO, for which he's been warned, along with WP:COI. Qworty (talk) 04:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ugh. Delete this vanity page, per nom. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - it sure does reek of vanity. It's hard to asume good faith in an instance like this. -Seidenstud (talk) 05:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:BIO and WP:VSCA. "Burke is [..] internationally recognized" claim violates WP:WEASEL and is totally unsubstantiated; "expert on Adobe InDesign, Adobe InCopy, and QuarkXPress" are particularly abundant in the world. None of the claims are properly sourced to reliable publications, and then I'm not even talking about the citation linked to a directory entry. Also, shame about the name. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Whilst Jimbo doesn't want the word vanity used... this is a textbook example of a vanity page. Terminate with extreme prejudice... Minkythecat (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and Salt Repeat self-promotion that just barely avoids speedy, and that need not be recreated. Townlake (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

While I fully understand your caution and suspicion, it is not my intent to use Wikipedia for spam or self promotion. The original Pariah Burke article was created by a third party; I don't recall by whom and cannot access the history of the original article. I later edited it to correct some outdated and erroneous information. The other day I came to the entry to update its bibliography section to include my latest book only to find the entry deleted. I restored the article, using as a template and guide current Wikipedia entries for my peers David Blatner and Ted Alspach.

If you examine the article you should note that it is clearly not for the purposes of self-promotion. Were that the case the article would be much longer and would include promotional copy about and links to my various books, the six for-profit websites I produce and/or edit, the software products I have produced or in which I have an interest, the several businesses in which I have interests, and so forth. In fact, there isn't even a link to my main website, iampariah.com. I didn't include it or any of the other information simply because there was not, in my opinion, any informative value to including such in the article.

The information I did include is relevant to those who might like to find out more information about this particular American techonology author--just as readers might like to find out about any of the other authors listed under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_technology_writers.

Further, I did not realize that my username violates any policies. I have never received any warning about that as Qworty states. How would such a warning have been delivered?

I've contributed over the years a little here and there to Wikipedia--mostly grammatical corrections--and extensively to other niche wikis at Wikia.com (see here for an example of my contributions), all using the same online name, which I also use for IMs, Usenet, and forums as well. I honestly did not think there was issue with my username, but would be happy to change it if the community or policy requires it.

Pariah S. Burke (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Hello there. My comment on your talk page was not in reference to your username, but to WP:COI and WP:AUTO. Your username is relevant only because it indicates COI and AUTO. Have you, btw, read WP:AUTO? I think it's especially relevant in this case. Thanks very much. Qworty (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Hi. Yes, I have read WP:AUTO. As I stated, the Pariah Burke article was originally created by a third party. My only editing of the original article was to correct factual errors; if I recall correctly (it's been a while), the mistakes were an incorrect date and a notation associating me with an organization with which I was not in fact affiliated. The subject of any biographical data must be given the ability to correct factual errors in that biographical data. Upon finding the article missing I restored it with information I strove to make as objective as possible, again, using similar articles about peers as a guide. If my restoration was not entirely objective, I apologize. Moreover, I request that the offending information be edited or removed as needed without calling for the destruction of the entire article. Pariah S. Burke (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. There are three wikipolicies at issue here. 1) Yes, a subject has an absolute right to correct errors in a biography, especially in terms of WP:BLP issues, and I and others will always defend a subject's right to do so. 2) While you have the right to do that, this is not the issue here. Correcting errors in a bio and reposting a deleted article about oneself are not the same thing at all. You should have never reposted a deleted article about yourself. 3) Finally, we have the overriding issue here: Does this particular article happen to meet the notability guidelines? Thus far, we have a resounding no. The article has already been deleted once. On this second deletion attempt, every single person who has spoken up thus far wants to see the article gone--everyone, that is, except for the guy the article is about. Things are not looking good for the retention of this article. And should you be tempted to remedy that situation, please read WP:MEAT first. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 04:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Further comment. These situations are always potentially awkward. I believe that WP:AUTO exists to protect the WP:BLP subject as much as it exists to protect the project. Perhaps even more so. In a situation like this one, the subject places himself in the awkward position of having to argue for his own notability. Meanwhile, those who are working from the perspective of policies and guidelines are placed in the awkward position of having to explain to a person why he or she is not notable by WP standards. There can hardly be anything more personal, even in a situation such as this one where there is nothing at all personal about it. Cases like these serve as reminders as to why we have WP:COI and WP:AUTO policies to begin with. I hope that Mr. Burke will take all of these concerns into consideration as he reads the comments of the half-dozen people who have called for this article to be deleted. Qworty (talk) 05:57, 6 June 2008 (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.