Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruckmanism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 MERGE to Peter Ruckman. Copypaste here we come. -Splashtalk 23:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ruckmanism

Unnotable word. Created by anon. user and possible vanity. Arbusto 05:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as protologism.--み使い Mitsukai 05:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Grandmasterka 05:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 05:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep or merge to Peter Ruckman. Not a protologism, an obscure but real school of thought with adherents and adversaries. Google finds a small but diverse group of sites, mainly from enemies[1]. This article needs some cleanup, some sourcing and may have a hard time staying NPOV, but seems like a worthy subject.  ·  rodii  ·  05:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment less than 500 hits including wiki-pages, personal webpages, and vanity pages. Article likely started for vanity and it has 7 edits. Arbusto 08:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm not sure why you say it's "likely" vanity. It was created back in August, before this run of Ruckman edits, and the edits it has are from a mix of editors. And as I say, it's linked from a variety of places. I agree it's marginal, but I have no reason to suspect its bona fides. Do you?  ·  rodii  ·  15:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
The creator the page has three edits, one is a revert of another change. The next edit that adds content is 67.187.32.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) who also added this into the Ruckman (person) article[2] No source, but plently of beliefs that is uncited and POV. After that the next editor to add content is 160.147.240.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) who added plently of personal belief-information on the Ruckman (person)[3] page, which is POV and unsourced. The other editors fixed spelling, categories, and added this afd. Arbusto 07:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, all I'm seeing there is that some anons added some crappy POV content, which is pretty much the norm here for anons, unfortunately. What makes it vanity? Look, I hate Gastroturfing as much as anybody, but I think we should stick to facts and stop looking for reds under the bed, as it were. Wikipedia policy is that anyone can edit, even anons. The other Ruckman articles seem more clearly vanity.  ·  rodii  ·  21:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment. I don't think the "facts" approach is useful for Arbusto/o. The individual is clearly known as "Dr. Peter S. Ruckman," but Arbusto/o would like to impose his view of how he thinks the world should be. So, he "edits" away "Dr." repeatedly. There is simply no doubt that he does not aim to inform readers of this entry, but instead desires only to impose his quirky views on everyone. Could an attitude be more damaging for wiki?
  • Keep, and merge Peter Ruckman into here. It sounds like this entity is (albeit weakly) substantiated, and Peter Ruckman is notable only because of it. -- Samir ∙ TC 07:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Peter Ruckman as he is the source of the term. - TRDriver 08:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment new user as of a few days ago. Arbusto 08:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: "Dr. Peter S. Ruckman" 2,300 plus hits on Google.
  • Merge and NPOV-ize. Rob 15:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Peter Ruckman -- Astrokey44|talk 00:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per others. Metamagician3000 06:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or delete --kingboyk 20:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per others. --DanielCD 21:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Peter Ruckman. JoshuaZ 03:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment We seem to have some serious sockpuppet problems going on here and on the associated deletion pages. See my comment here [4]. JoshuaZ 19:47, 2 March 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.