Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom G. Palmer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 can't see a clear consensus, defaulting to keep. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 04:38, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tom G. Palmer

Note: will Sockpuppets from both sides please desist, you will be ignored and if anything damage your case Dunc|☺ 18:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

This article was clearly written by Tom G. Palmer himself, as is evident by visiting his website, TomGPalmer.com. While I applaud Mr. Palmer on his various achievements, including that he, "smuggled books, photocopiers, and fax machines from an office in Vienna, Austria and traveled throughout the region to hold seminars", I find him lacking notability for the encyclopedia. Further, his page violates the Wikipedia:Vanity page guideline. Alterego 15:39, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, vanity cv, self promotion. Wyss 16:19, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems notable, though needs cleaning up certainly. Dunc|☺ 17:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep & cleanup. There is sufficient verifiable material available.. Palmer is notable, among other things, as being an openly gay fellow at the Cato Institute. He is also a noted critic of Lew Rockwell, another libertarian (and employer of Kinsella - see below). A blog devoted to attacking him is another sign of notability. (I see that an entry has been posted in that blog pointing to this page). - Willmcw 18:31, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • A "Stephan Kinsella" is listed as "Adjunct Faculty" of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, of which Lew Rockwell is the founder and president. Perhaps it's an unpaid position, there's no indication. -Willmcw 20:17, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Refactor or delete Sufficiently notable for some sort of page, but better nothing than something so shamelessly self-promotional --Dfranke 17:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Not a sockpuppet, my identity can be easily verified by looking at my blog (http://the-free-radicals.org). I don't know what Duncharris's agenda is, but I would seriously question any of his other sockpuppet accusations as well.
      • dfranke (talk · contribs) inelligble to vote, too few edits. Dunc|☺ 20:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
        • There is no policy stipulating any threshold of edit counts. --Dfranke
  • Delete. The quality of the article is so low that it looks unsalvageable. If this person is important someone will create sane article later. Pavel Vozenilek 22:13, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems to be notable on the basis of his publication record. Definitely more worthy of inclusion than individual Pokemons or the GNAA. Martg76 22:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable writer/activist. Anyone who devotes their lives to writing will inevitably rack up a large number of verifiable writing credits; that doesn't make them notable in an encyclopedic sense, unless their writing succeeds in making a major impact on the world at large. Dcarrano 23:19, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Keep' Palmer is notable and info was easily verified. Awyllie 20:10, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Awyllie (talk · contribs) — this isn't a sockpuppet at all e.g. he's got an article that he wrote, and improved, currently on VfD in an unrelated field. Be more careful Dunc, and there is no edit count criterion for voting, so one should not be enforced here. -Splash 01:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notability appears to have been established. -Splash 01:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC) Owing to related matters, I feel I must withdraw my vote from here altogether. -Splash 19:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • splash: do you not see that the entry is blatantly self-promotional and vanity type? Just take a look at it.
      • I agree that it smells of autobiography, and I don't like those, but they are not a grounds for deletion. I'm presuming the facts given in the article are verifiable and true (but tell me if they're not) and things like addressing the Iraqi parliament, being senior in the Cato institute and having things published in books and proper magazines would seem to lend credence to a notability claim: he's probably more notable than your average college professor, so probably passes the (informal) professor test. -Splash 02:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete self promotion not helped by sockpuppets. JamesBurns 03:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. Google returns 13500 hits for the query "Tom G. Palmer" cato [1]. If it does not make him notable, I dunno what should be the test to decide on this. --Edcolins 07:55, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Reasonably notable. Could use some editing. - Nat Krause 05:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this and all of the autobiographical, self-important, blogging libertarians, liberals, socialists, and nationalists. These resumes are getting out of hand. -Willmcw 09:09, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Smells like a sad internet-argument that overflowed onto wikipedia. I would be willing to change my vote if this article was formatted and cleaned up to an acceptable level, only stressing the notable facts.
  • Delete, WP:VAIN, WP:NOT, WP:SOCK. Radiant_>|< 14:28, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with Dunc re notability and need for cleanup. If there are other libertarians who are more notable, someone should write the appropriate articles. We have no requirement that we start at the top in notability and work our way down. JamesMLane 18:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Appears in Marquis Who's Who. Entry should probably be trimmed, however. Gamaliel 01:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - senior fellow for the Kato Institute? C'mon people! Why is this on vfd? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Same reason mine is, probably... You can guess... Stephan Kinsella 04:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, what reason is that? -Willmcw 04:16, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
        • Two words: Wiki. Nerds. Hah. Just kidding, Willmcw. Just funnin' ya. :) --Stephan Kinsella 12:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
          • As long as you include yourself in that category then you might be right. -Willmcw 17:13, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity, Sockpuppets per Radiant. Xoloz 01:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable libertarian author and major figure at Cato Institute. Rangerdude 06:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - in addendum to my vote above, I will note that a closer review of this article leads me to conclude that it should be trimmed and undergo general NPOV edits to reduce some of the vanity characteristics. Rangerdude 20:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity - He obviously wrote it himself. Time to draw a line in the sand. Rothbard 19:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, a marginal character but one at least likely to have been read by people who do not limit their reading to texts they expect to agree with. Judge Magney 03:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discounted votes

Suspected sockpuppets (including new users) and/or are disqualified from voting. Dunc|☺ 19:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with above, clearly a vanity page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Evomutant (talk • contribs) 10:05, July 16, 2005
  • Do Not Delete, presents useful information and links to significant articles by a significant figure in libertarian movement —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laidbacklibertarian (talk • contribs) 10:34, July 16, 2005
  • Keep Palmer's been involved with libertarianism since the movements real beginnings in the 70s. Edit maybe, but keep the bulk of the article. --Merkanleveller 17:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Sockpuppet Merkanleveller (talk · contribs) - discount vote, Dunc|☺ 18:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Palmer is of minor importance in the libertarian movement, but his ego is enormous, as witness this obviously self-written panegyric. User: jriggenbach
    • Not by User:Jriggenbach (there is no user registered by that name), but by 64.81.69.94 (talk · contribs) Dunc|☺ 18:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
      • I do not know about any of this, but Jeff Riggenbach is a well known libertarian who knows what he is talking about; it is very likely he did write the comment duncharris deleted. It should be restored. It could be Riggenbach made a technical mistake or does not konw what a sock puppet is (as I do not quite my own self).
        • I am Jeff Riggenbach, and I did in fact write the comment duncharris deleted. I'm a bit unfamiliar with protocol around here, and wasn't aware I was supposed to "register" anywhere -- where? If anyone wishes to confirm my opinion on this issue, I can be reached at jriggenbach@bigfoot.com
          • I'll add that I've known Tom Palmer since he was a college kid in the '70s, and an intern at the Cato Institute, then located in San Francisco. I was executive editor of The Libertarian Review at the time, and executive producer of Byline, Cato's daily public affairs radio program. I think Tom has done well over the years, but he's hardly so important that he merits an encyclopedia article devoted to his greatness. - Jeff Riggenbach
  • Delete, vanity cv, Palmer is not a major libertarian figure. Gil Guillory 14:27, 17 July 2005 (CST)
    • Gilguillory (talk · contribs)
      • This user account is not a sock puppet. My screen name is my real name, Gil Guillory. I have not been especially active on Wikipedia, except for usage and a single edit I made in the market failure page last April, after having written an article on the topic. However, I did not create the account specifically to enter this foray, nor is it a puppet account of another. I think it is self-evident to most libertarians that Palmer is not even a minor intellectual in the libertarian movement. An important activist, yes; but, I don't think that qualifies for a Wikipedia entry. Gil Guillory 07:36, 18 July 2005 (CST)
  • Delete The entry is clearly self-promotion. Furthermore, Palmer isn't a particularly significant libertarian thinker. Prior to noticing his slanders of Hans Hermann Hoppe, I'd never heard of him at all. There are libertarians of more importance who have no Wikipedia entries at all, or much shorter ones.
  • Keep, could be trimmed, but Tom Palmer is a notable figure in the libertarian movement. To people voting 'delete', have you seen who is profiled on wikipedia? User:Jstrummer 21 July 2005
    • Second edit.
  • Keep, notable leader in the libertarian movement. article, like many, needs editing. Poshua 17:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC) Poshua (talk · contribs) active since the 11th


[edit] Comments

  • NOTE: See vendetta campaign launched by "Stephan Kinsella" page deleted some time ago at this location [2], located on a site maintained by Kinsella for sole purpose of stalking Palmer (including obscene sexual comments, etc.)' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laidbacklibertarian (talk • contribs) 10:34, July 16, 2005
  • Stephan Kinsella does not maintain the Palmer Periscope webpage. He posts there, but did not create and does not maintain the website. He has used that web-page as a place to counter some of the outrageous libel against Hans-Hermann Hoppe that comes from Palmer's webpage.
  • Furthermore, aforementioned "obscene sexual comments" were just comment spam which Palmer falsely portrayed as being written by Kinsella. --Dfranke
  • Come on this is a campaign by Kinsella to get rid of a Wiki entry! Has the man got nothing better to do?

I find Palmer to be a figure of not enough significance to be mentioned in an encylopedia. He is not a key figure in libertarian thought. There are libertarians of much more significance than Mr. Palmer who do not have a Wikipedia entry, or who have a shorter entry than Palmer's.

  • Stephan Kinsella here: Please note: I did NOT start this campaign to delete Palmer's site. Nskinsella 18:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Anyone who attacks him should be careful. Admins take a very dim view of personal attacks. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Kinsella drew attention to this article on his anti-Palmer blog, and then promoted this VfD on it when another editor nominated it. Whether Kinsella made the nomination itself is a minor point - he has lobbied heavily for this VfD. -Willmcw 04:59, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
        • Actually, Willmcw, that was before I realized what the rules on notability were. I initially assumed that, since my first entry had been previously deleted, then Palmer's entry was deletable too, since he is arguably not significanly more notable than I. But when I read up on the actual Wiki rules for notability, I realized that my entry qualifies, so I put up my entry. And I have removed my comments on Palmer's site about deleting it; that is for others to decide. Nom. --Stephan Kinsella 17:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • For the record, my attention was also drawn here by Stephan Kinsella, as were many others. I find the practice of such lobbying distasteful, but have concluded that deletion is merited, not in the least because the conflict ongoing among these parties cast a cloud over these articles. Xoloz 01:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Lobbying? Are you kidding? I don't maintain Palmer's site should be deleted, Xoloz! Now that I'm aware of the bio criteria. Were I you, I'd vote to keep it (perhaps, w/ some improvement, toning down of the self-promotion etc.). Why are you blaming me for your delete vote? Change it to keep if you want, I'm not stopping you. Stephan Kinsella 03:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I did not "blame" you. I stated, for the record, the facts which led me here. The "lobbying" to which I refer most strongly related to your own article, but (because your message was such an obvious attempt at advocacy), I think it not unreasonable to draw the inference that you were, more sublty, lobbying against Palmer as well. My vote is, of course, my own judgment, by which I stand. I think it fair to say, though, that you have exerted some influence over this VfD. While such efforts are not prohibited or uncommon at Wikipedia, many users consider such conduct less than ethically pure, and, in any case, the question had arisen above. If you, in fact, do favor the "keeping" of this article, then your attempt to draw my attention here has yielded a (very minor) result unwelcome for you, a consequence which you may (or may not) wish to note for future decision-making. Xoloz 04:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
It's rich for you to bemoan my "influence" over this VfD when you are yourself voting here. And just because I would have had you vote "keep" here (if only because I favor adherence to the Wiki bio policies, which you and other deleters evidently feel free to disregard), it does not mean I do not also favor a democratic system where you have the right to vote as you will. There is no inconsistency. Any more than it is inconsistent for a democrat politician to ask people to vote--even if they vote against him. If anyone influenced this VfD, it is those who tried to delete this very site, which made me review the bio policy, which led me to put up my own entry again. Stephan Kinsella 04:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
As you continue acquainting yourself with Wikipedia policy, note that Wikipedia is not a democracy, so your point there is rather inexact. Further, I fail to understand your first point, since my voting here is a (minor) result of your influence, and that was among the reasons I chose to comment to keep the record clear. And lastly, I do not believe any "deleter" here "disregards" Bio policy -- I feel that the disfavoring of autobiographical articles creates a presumptive disqualification which has not been overcome by evidence, nor helped by this air of advocacy which, I hope you see, you helped foster. I suggest further discussion between us, if you care to respond, move to my talk page. Xoloz 05:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Radiant. The JPS 15:12, 22 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.