Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Rue

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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timothy_Rue

The subject (Rue) was a somewhat notorious poster in one single niche usenet group, and a such does not meet the notability guidelines (see Wikipedia:Notability_(people)) to merit his own Wikipedia entry. Prod removed by author without meaningful objection, so bringing it to AfD. Panzerb0y 12:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and possible Speedy per A7 (bio). Kuzaar 12:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

He was popular in at least a dozen newsgroups, about a dozen popular forums, and has appeared in local TV and radio, and we're talking about two decades here, he most certainly meets the Wikipedia Notability guidelines. --72.236.44.169 13:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Tim Rue and the VIC are very famous in the Amiga Community.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.191.227 (talk • contribs)

• Weak keep He isn't Kibo, but he was prolific. I would like to know more about the media mentions though. Kotepho 20:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Disagree - delete his entry he is an oxygen thief. Tim Rue is not a programmer (despite his own claims) and he was never a popular figure in the NGs except as a figure of fun. His appearances on his local TV, etc. mean nothing, he self promoted and his claims therein were not critically evaluated. The VIC is merely a set of scripts to automate some tasks - not even innovative since it was actually very similar to a previous Amiga application. He plagued usenet NGs (not just Amiga related) with his rants and was frequently banned by his ISPs. I agree he is well known but noteriety is not notability. The man (by his own admission) is mentally unstable and his claims for the VIC have never been substantiated. He gained his noteriety by abusive and OT posting not by being intelligent and posting worthwhile or interesting comments. If you leave this entry then you only pander to his self delusion that he is some sort of computing guru.

FYI he has also claimed to be a messiah and that the film "The Matrix" is based on his life!). A wacko.

• Delete—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.5.121 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia does not have the resources to spend on verifying whether or not the claims others make about me are honest or acts of deception. This goes back to the original article. And simpler things to verify are not being considered, such as how contridictary it is for usent posters and trolls to claim they don't understand and are some sort of authority, yet I can hire a programmer to code the very same thing with no difficulty in communication. The wikipedia entry has been on the side of libel since its beginning and I only ever edited it to provide links to more current references (I said "ok" for a while.) Should I be supprised for it then to evolve to this state? Trolls are easy to manipulate and I did call on them (meat puppets you could claim - there is always a way to twist thing - simple bit flipping abstraction physics.) but not to keep the article. To remove it and it libel bias, if only for its lack of research to uncover honesty. I don't need to vote, the trolls are doing it for me and wikipedia make that possible. And doing it this way, I control it rather than me not know about it, while others use wikipedia to commit libel against me. People want to find me, there is google web, images and groups, and archive.org. Far more coverage than wikipedia could ever allow a single topic. And without the voting control of a few. That's what is real! By its own policies, wikipedia is not allowed to be an authoritive publication, to better cover its butt, perhaps such a statement should be a sub header on articles with potential issues. Even the trolls and bullies of usenet have helped me to establish prior art as in the virtual interaction configuration, by their helping to ingrain my communications about it into the archives.Wikipedia is not an archive, just another of many places I have passed, whether I knew about it or not.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Threeseas (talk • contribs)

• keep and please do not call people a wacko that is very rude Yuckfoo 17:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. As near as I can tell, Rue has not made any serious contribution to the field of computer science. His VIC project page appears febrile. Mostly, I can't understand its purpose; and to the degree I do understand its purpose, it appears non-notable. --Rob 19:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete Individual Usenet posters, much like web-forum users, are rarely notable in an encyclopedic sense. Nothing in the article suggests this guy is any exception to the rule. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There is alot of useless junk in usenet, a place where its easy to find those who have nothing better to do than to give others a hard time. But there is also some good stuff. And then there is the usefulness of it regardless of content value, that of multipule generated and integrated time stamps and archiving. The sort of thing that is useful for establishing prior art (re: patents and copyright issues). There are those who claim they don't understand what I'm on about and there are those who do. but the simple fact is, its an identification of unavoidable actions we all, everyone of us, apply in creating and using abstractions. In other words if someone doesn't understand these actions, it can only be due their inability to know what they themselves do. To make these actions available within the environment of computing, as functionality, simple provides the mechanism control points to enable the automation of anything, and by anyone. There is a battle over intellectual property in the form of software patents and this is what is going to break it. But that is "abstraction Physics" where the connection I (Tim Rue) have to it is making damn sure nobody can patent it, due prior art I've established thru usenet, and many other communications. Search google for "Tim rue and abstraction physics" and access the cache of teh wikipedia entry that was deleted under the arguement of it being original research. Why Amiga newsgroups? cause it was teh amiga that had all three primary user interfaces available in a usable and common enough manner that inspired me to toss together a very primitive form of the virtual interaction configuration. Or at least try to only to find there seemed to always be something lacking, but for no good reason. I know plenty enough about computer electronics and programming to know better, as I'm damn well sure others do as well.

A rather small collective of people gave me a hard time on usenet, but in a bigger picture, such as slashdot I have "excellent karma" it goes on and on and still this entry make a faulty claim that my posting style is difficult if not impossible for others to understand. Why? Further more the code to one of the VIC commands "IQ" can be run with a switch (the existance of a filename (see source code) that enable one to watch what the program does when it is run. After some simple editing of the arexx documentation for imageFX (and image process program), using IQ I was able to set in motion teh examples given in the documentation. QAlso see my comment the the discussion link to the article of my name.

As I have said, I'm findable thru google groups, web and images as well as archive.org. I don't need wikipedia, I didn't put myself here, especially if wikipedia is going to be used against its own policies to commit libel against me. I can except "computer specialist" as I am by default the leading authority on abstraction physics, but I don't crank out enough code (regardless of my education) to call myself a programmer in the traditional or old hat sense. T.Rue 03:24, 3 May 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.