Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winter laake

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 was a snowy close. There is clear consensus to delete (with a very small chance of consensus changing); the only opposer being disruptive and may lack understanding of the notability and verifiability policies. Sr13 02:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Winter laake

Winter laake (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Speedy delete nn per WP:Bio. —Gaff ταλκ 00:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Incoherent, apparently unsalveageable POV, not notable, and no reliable sources. Abeg92contribs 00:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV, not exactly what you would call notable. Also if you try to read the article, it is like trying to find your through a swamp. Basically, per Abeg92. --Random Say it here! 00:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, maybe speedy as nonsense per discussion. No attempts at verifying notability are made. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Change vote to Strong Delete. It's coherent, so it's not nonsense, but everything in here is unattributable. Library of Congress does not give any sort of poetry awards, the publication The Pestilence Revisited does not exist as per a Google search, and no evidence of Winter laake touring with any of the bands listed. This is entirely WP:BOLLOCKS, plain and simple. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Addendum: LoC will administrate poetry awards. If he got one, there are three they administrate, two of which are laureates. Based on this, I find it highly unlikely that the subject has received such an award. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Is it possible to speedy this along per WP:SNOW if nothing else? I grow tired of having to take care of bizarre formatting and unsigned comments below. It would be best for wikipedia to close this discussion. —Gaff ταλκ 02:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of the above comments. Saying "Winter Laake's written and vocal work is steeped in the occult, magic and satanic ideals" could be a violation of WP:BLP (the satanic part mainly) and I removed the content from WRITERS & DISCOGRAPHY PROFILE as it was a copyvio of [1]. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be a writer or an author of some sort, are we going to censor all authors? Are we deleting the similar musicians and authors at this time. What have the above created or accomplished? They have created nothing, Stop this censorship, DO NOT DELETE.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.3.230.111 (talk • contribs) 06:09, May 29, 2007.

  • ...what censorship? Near as I can tell, the subject just plain isn't notable. If he doesn't hold to those guidelines, then we delete it. That's not censorship. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This wikepedia is no different than boyd rice or death in june, winter laake falls into the same genre, do not delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.230.111 (talk)

  • Comment Notice that both Boyd Rice and Death In June are well written, have multiple references and external links to prove notability, and meet applicable policies. I'm also not sure how you made the connection between comments like "Delete: Non-notable person" to "censor all authors." Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 06:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - ANOTHER non-notable biography of a living person. -=Elfin=-341 06:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This page appears to be in the works, I am glad that you acknowledge that winter laake obviously falls in the same arena. NO ONE CAN DISPUTE THAT WINTER LAAKE IS A PUBLISHED WRITER AND DESERVES TO BE ENTERED INTO WIKEPEDIA> Do Not Delete. CAN ANYONE DISPUTE THE KNOWN FACTS WITHIN THE ARTICLE WITH EVIDENCE? NO THEY CANNOT> DO NOT DELETE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.230.111 (talk • contribs) 9 May 2007 07:02 (UTC)
    • Please add your comments at the bottom of the discussion, instead of putting them inside other people's comments, and sign using four tildes ~~~~. Regards, cab 07:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

How is BOYD RICE not notable, he is a groundbreaking artist similar to Winter Laake, what have the above critics done to be notable? DO NOT DELETE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.230.111 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete. Boyd Rice is notable, silly rabbit! Try reading harder as nobody suggested otherwise. Winter Laake, however, is Some Random™ with no sources or anything to suggest his noteworthiness. tomasz. 10:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

YOU STATE THAT WINTER LAAKE HAS NO SOURCES< WHAT EVIDENCE TO YOU HAVE TO PROVE YOUR ARGUEMENT> YOU HAVE NONE< YES< THANK YOU FOR AGREEING THAT BOYD RICE IS NOTABLE> THUS MY POINT. MANY LINKS EXIST ON THE WINTER LAAKE PAGE SHOWING NOTABILITY>CAN YOU PROVE A LACK OF NOTABILITY OTHER THAN JUST BY SAYING IT>NO YOU CANNOT> YOUR ARGUEMENT IS FLAWED>DO NOT DELETE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.230.111 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment. no. there are not notable links. what there is is:
1. a link to a minor record label;
2. a writers' organisation that the subject is a member of; and
3. a MySpace group.

1 is not notable as all it proves is that the subject has an album which has been released and sold on teh intarweb. big wow. 2 is irrelevant since the link is just the writers' organisation's homepage and makes no mention of the subject; thus, it proves the organisation exists but does nothing to substantiate the existence or notability of Laaake. 3 is irrelvant because MySpace is not a credible source.

"THANK YOU FOR AGREEING THAT BOYD RICE IS NOTABLE> THUS MY POINT" uhhh... no. is it so hard for you to grasp that doing the same activity as your hero does not confer on you the same rights to notability/fame/anything else that your hero has? Boyd got there first, deal with it. "CAN YOU PROVE A LACK OF NOTABILITY OTHER THAN JUST BY SAYING IT>NO YOU CANNOT> YOUR ARGUEMENT IS FLAWED" i can and i just did. my argument eats you. tomasz. 14:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

YOUR ARGUEMENT IS FLAWED, QUITE OBVIOUSLY WINTER LAAKE IS MORE NOTABLE THAN YOU ARE, BY THE VERY WEBSITES YOU POINT OUT< THANK YOU FOR EXPRESSING THE SAME OBVIOUS POINT, WINTER LAAKE IS KNOWN TO MANY WHILE YOU ARE KNOWN TO NONE, WINTER LAAKE DESERVES TO BE ON WIKEPEDIA WHERE AS YOU ARE NOT AND NOR WILL EVER BE>DO NOT DELETE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.230.111 (talk • contribs)

*Comment. You seem to be confusing Winter Laaaake's non-notability (the subject of this discussion) as having anything to do with me. Just to clarify for you: my notability or lack of is irrelevant, while Laaaaaake's is relevant but completely lacking. Dunno what you're banging on about but you could at least make an effort to say something relevant in your future posts. Perhaps you could start by giving a sensible reason why my argument is "flawed" or why Laaaaaaaaaake is notable. tomasz. 15:53, 29

HENCE THE CRUX OF MY POINT, YOU HAVE NO NOTABILITY YOURSELF WHERE AS WINTER LAAKE IS A KNOWN AWARD WINNING POET. YOUR ARGUEMENT IS FLAWED B/C YOU CANNOT DISPUTE THE WEBSITES OR AWARDS MENTIONED IN THE ARTICLE, YOU HAVE TO DIS-PROVE THE NOTABILITY STATED ON THE WIKEPEDIA PAGE, NOT JUST SAY SO> THIS IS A COMMON STANDARD. DO NOT DELETE 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.230.111 (talk • contribs)

*Comment. Actually, you don't have to be notable yourself to take part in a Wikipedia deletion discussion. I have already disputed the websites mentioned in the article as none of them are good sources, and you haven't managed to find a shred of argument to suggest that they are good sources. Furthermore, it's actually the other way round: if you want the article to stay, you have to prove the notability of the subject, not just say so. And lastly please stop typing in capitals, it makes you look stupid. tomasz. 16:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

YOU SHOW NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE DISPROVING ANY MERITS OF THE DLETION POLICY IN REGARDS TO NOTABILITY, YOU HAVE NOT DISPROVED WINTER LAAKE'S NOTABILITY. DO NOT DELETE, IF PARIS HILTON TO BOYD RICE ARE ON WIKEPEDIA WHO CARES IF THE POET WINTER LAAKE IS, I AM NOT THE WRITER, JUST A FAN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.230.111 (talk • contribs)

*"1 is not notable as all it proves is that the subject has an album which has been released and sold on teh intarweb. big wow. 2 is irrelevant since the link is just the writers' organisation's homepage and makes no mention of the subject; thus, it proves the organisation exists but does nothing to substantiate the existence or notability of Laaake. 3 is irrelvant because MySpace is not a credible source." <<< there is my evidence, you have ignored it before, doubtless you will ignore it again and come up with a load of irrelevant toss about Paris Hilton. as far as i can see, the only person in favour of keeping this article is either unable or unwilling to argue its case. Agree with Gaff below, let's just get rid of this now. tomasz. 17:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Request Can we close this AfD per WP:Snow?—Gaff ταλκ 17:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

So everyone knows, this page is under construction. Pictures and Winter Laake's photography portfolio will be added. If the page for Winter Laake is deleted it will not be on the merits of Winter Laake's notability but in regards, to censorship. The creator of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.230.111 (talk • contribs)

no, it will be on the merits of Winter Laake's notability, regardless of what conspiracy of censorship you perceive against you or your article. Why not leave out the photographic portfolio and try putting in something with any bearing on why this man is supposed to matter. tomasz. 17:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I will add anything necesary to the page that wikepedia requires, underground poets are to few and far between in North America. The page is under construction. I do not feel there are any conspiracies against me. Censorship comes in many forms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.230.111 (talk • contribs)

Actually, your constant insistence that you're being censored is a prime example of you decrying a perceived conspiracy against you. However, Wikipedia is not censored. tomasz. 18:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Tomaz, you appear to be discussing conspiracy I am not. I have no desire to argue over this point. I will state again that I do not feel there is a conspiracy against me. Wikepedia has already acknowledged that the page is going forward by allowing me to write on the subject matter of this north american poet. Winter Laake's page is under construction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.230.111 (talk • contribs)

I would also like to say that I hold no ill will towards anyone and I wish no personal attacks on anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfloki (talk • contribs)

Then stop yelling. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate someones work on the page, I lack the skill. Some of the information has been deleted. I will attempt to retrieve it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.230.111 (talk) Thanks again for the assistance on this page! The creator—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfloki (talk • contribs) I retrieved the information from the vandalism, any help would be apreciated—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.230.111 (talk)

If you are referring to the information that was in the WRITERS & DISCOGRAPHY PROFILE section. It's removal was not vandalism. It was almost a direct copy of [2], making it a copyright violation. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Nonnotable and unsourced. Some parts such as the Library of Congress poetry award appear to be hoaxed. Edward321 00:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I looked for Library of Congess Poetry Awards myself and could find nothing. —Gaff ταλκ 00:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The information under the "Timeline" section is all taken from this page which appears to be a written by Laake, or at least on his behalf. As far as his book Enter the Vampire, I can't even find evidence of publication, a Google, Amazon, and Ebay search turned up nothing at all. Same for The Pestilence Revisited. The only one that can actually be proven to exist is Endeavors to Oblivion, for sale on Amazon and other sites. However, that only proves existence, it is barely a source In fact, Amazon contradicts the article, claiming it was released June 2000, not 1999. Most of the article is in violation of the verifiability policy. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:39, 30 May 2007 (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.