Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romath

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --cesarb 13:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Romath

The voting for this proposition has been compromised by deleting entries by an anon user. Take note when tallying.

I don't really CARE what your dumb 'vote' results in.

I have already posted the FACT that Wikipedia DOES NOT have MY permission to keep this page, and likewise, it does not have my permission to save, archive, re-direct, retrieve, or post ANY page using either my Rihannsu OR my real name.

Wikipedia had better govern itself accordingly.

This seems to have originally been a vanity page, now the subject would like it deleted - given its history, I see no reason not to delete. sannse (talk) 6 July 2005 17:53 (UTC)

• Delete per sannse. Dcarrano July 6, 2005 19:57 (UTC)
• Delete Clearly not a vanity page. Not convinced of notability - seems to just have a web presence, and I don't think that's enough to establish worthiness of a page, jguk 6 July 2005 22:21 (UTC)
• Delete -- BMIComp (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 08:38 (UTC)
• Delete. Romath, I'm sure you're very sweet an' all, working to uphold your beliefs (nothing wrong with that)... but does that and a few thousand alt.* posts make you notable? Well, um, no. Unless you've been on SlashDot or something, something OUTSIDE of your current sphere of fame giving acknowledgement of your noteriety. However if we did deem you notable enough to be here your opposition to the page would NOT be recognised. Unless you threatened legal trouble or something like that. Our goal is to provide the facts, not what people want the facts to be :) Oh and as for not being allowed to use your name, we will only honor name suppression in the case of kidnappings etc. out of respect for the family while the case is going on. Garrett^Talk 12:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Romath won a Kook of the Month award, which makes her at least as notable as the GNAA. Kelly Martin 13:14, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN. The subject's views on the matter are totally irrelevant. Subjects do not have the right to censor articles. David | Talk 13:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone can provide some evidence of more notability. Fuzheado | Talk 14:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not Notable. Shanes 14:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP, as I voted before. NOTE: I think someone removed a few KEEP votes, including mine. CDThieme 17:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It seems three "keep" votes were deleted with this edit [1]. One of those is yours, the other two are from Rlandmann and eric. A number of comments were also deleted, jguk 18:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep - Romath is quite a Usenet celebrity - not quite in the league of Archimedes Plutonium or Sollog, but noteworthy none the less. Both of those articles describe their subjects' kookiness without being perjorative, so there's no reason why this can't be cleaned up to do the same. --Rlandmann 7 July 2005 01:50 (UTC) + FROM Romath:
  • Are you volunteering? I'd vote to keep if there was an editor who could make this article wiki-worthy. -Willmcw July 7, 2005 03:09 (UTC)
• Keep, if only because the talk page is hilarious. Also, documenting internet personalities who might not otherwise get coverage is something I think the wikipedia could (eventually?) become quite good at. eric ✈ 8 July 2005 06:20 (UTC)
• Delete. Kibo is notable, so in a less nice way are Canter and Siegel. Romath is famous for being KOTM. Well I've been KOTM at least twice so do I get two Wikipedia articles about me? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 8 July 2005 07:35 (UTC)
• Keep: notable Internet kook. CDThieme 8 July 2005 21:15 (UTC) revoted above.
  • Okay, does that mean I get an article on Wikipedia? There aren't that many of us Wikipedia editors around that merit an article, and if KOTM is what it takes, I believe I've won it at least as many times as Romath. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 8 July 2005 23:49 (UTC)
    • With all due respect, there are other kooks that we can just Romath against. Category:Usenet people include thirteen other people, not including spammers. Is Romath of a comparable notability/verifiability to those other thirteen? -Willmcw 22:57, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN (as long as we keep the talk page too). DS 23:52, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough if the scope of search is expanded beyond the web to Usenet. Jonathunder 21:31, 2005 July 10 (UTC)
• Keep. Minor notability, at best, but that seems sufficient for the GNAA. --Calton | Talk 00:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -Uris 04:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Nonvoting comments appear below, relocated from elsewhere in the voting page.

FROM Romath: It most certainly is a page of lies and innuendo, NOT posted there by me. I came across the thing quite by accident, and only tried to CORRECT the lies in it, merely finding some fool keeps on putting the lies right back in. I even tried redirecting the page in order to have my full Rihannsu name entered, then hoopefully having a page where the TRUTH would be left alnoe, but to no avail. someone screwed that up, removed the full name refirect, then falsely accused me of trying to say 'Rihannsu'; was religion, which I never, ever did! I even tried blanking the pagew because of the all-too-frequent vandalism against it. Next, 'evil monkey; blocked me from entering in order to re-edit. I solved that crap by going to another computer and getting in. To thie very DAY-- the crap still goes on --- I re-edit to tell the truth----- certain individuals plaster the lies right back into it.

As I mentined before, this vanity page was NOT placed here by me, and since I am the person being discussed, Wikipedia DOES NOT HAVE my permission to keep this page. It also serves NO PURPOSE to see ridiculous editing wars in here, in a site that has potential as a valuable learning tool if used properly. Allowing ridiculous pages like this one to exist and remainis an error, both to the encyclopedia end of things, and legally.

As I have been asking for some timer now, PLEASE DELETE THE ROMATH PAGE. IT IS NOT MINE, I DID NOT PLACE IT HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND ITS LIES ARE CONSTANTLY BEING PUT RIGHT BACK IN AFTER I CORRECT THEM. DELETE IT PLEASE, AND AT ONCE. Romath

[edit] ========

• Comment. I don't believe that it was started as a vanity. However the subject has been intensely involved in editing it over the last couple of weeks, principally to correct perceived "lies" and because she is strongly opposed to having her real name mentioned (though she herself has revealed it many times). She is a famous "kook" on the Usenet, but there is no NPOV way of saying so (that I know of), so her greatest claim to fame is not mentioned in the article. Merely starting a group doesn't give her much notability. The subject's objections to the article do not seem to be a sufficient reason to remove it, but in light of her minimal notability I don't see a reason to keep it either. -Willmcw July 6, 2005 20:33 (UTC)

FROM Romath: I post my name WHERE I WANT IT POSTED, yes. HERE is not it, and I have NEVER POSTED IT HERE.

It also has been posted AGAINST MY WILL on certainb sites, including this one, and in usenet.

As for the 'kook' crap, that is nonsense. A bunch of detractors supposedly nominated me for uisenet's kook of the month award years ago for my strong oppostion to certain lifestyle issues. Just because I am against such things, that doesn't verify I'm a 'kook' of any kind.

• • Ah, I see I misunderstood. But I think an anti-vanity page is as worthy of deletion as a vanity page -- sannse (talk) 7 July 2005 09:25 (UTC)
    • Now there is a principle which should be enshrined in the guidelines. However the origins of this article are moot as it has been heavily edited since then. The latest incarnation is mostly a total vanity production which was then substantially cut and slightly re-written by me. Regarding the notability of the subject: the large number of Google Group hits indicates that she may be notable, if we can find a way of describing that notability in a neutral fashion. -Willmcw July 7, 2005 09:37 (UTC)
• I'm with Willmcw, wherever that might be. Josh Parris ✉ 6 July 2005 21:50 (UTC)

FROM Romath:

Wikipedia DOES NOT HAVE MY PERMISSION TO KEEP IT. It was placed on Wikip[edia illegally to begin with.

• Comment It's not illegal to use your name... BMIComp (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.

FROM ROMATH: You still do not have my permission to keep or use a Romath page, or ANY PAGE THAT HAS MY REAL OR RIHANNSU NAME ON IT.

GET IT OFF and kindly KEEP IT OFF.

Wikipedia doesn't need your permission to keep or use a Romath page, with or without your real or assumed name. If you feel differently, kindly cite the relevent sections of whatever legal code governs Wikipedia entries so we can judge. --Calton | Talk 00:19, 11 July 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.