- 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 delete. -- Mr. Lefty ( talk) 22:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Paul Nowell
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
This is a biography of a minor musician. I prodded it, and the main contributor deprodded it claiming that it meets WP:MUSIC for working on a film score. However, having contributed to the score of one minor film doesn't automatically qualify someone for an article. Anyway, the subject doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines, and he generated no major online mentions. The article strongly appears to be autobiographical- the main contributor is Jazztrbn77, which like stands for "Jazz trombone." -- Wafulz 01:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I'm sure he's a good musician and wish him the best of luck, but it seems to be a vanity page. The writing style is very subjective (seems self-written). Also too long an article, too much info for a subject lacking notability. ( Therin83 01:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC))
- Delete It may not meet WP:MUSIC criteria, it doesn't appear notable, and is vanity. Hello32020 02:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I know him and he is a very active musician in California. It does meet WP:MUSIC criteria. It states "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets ANY ONE of the criteria. One of the criteria is Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show. If that isnt true then they should rewrite the WP:MUSIC criteria — Possible single purpose account: Kimalvara ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- You conveniently ignored the following:
- Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.)-- Wafulz 23:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep looked at WP:Music and agree with kimalvara it says any one of the following, he is on IMDB— Possible
single purpose account:
Happyday1954 (
talk •
contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Again, read what I have in the nomination. It doesn't matter if he's on IMDb- he has do have actually done something notable. -- Wafulz 23:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Looks legit to me ( Raytuflin 1:54, 16 october 2006 — Possible single purpose account: Raytuflin ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Keep ( Duccio505 11:54, 16 october 2006 — Possible single purpose account: Duccio505 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Delete Don't agree that he meets WP:MUSIC - "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable" - playing a trombone doesn't equate to "has performed" unless it is a solo or small ensemble work. Otherwise every member of every orchestra would be notable. QuiteUnusual 16:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, the movie he did the theme for is pretty "independent," if you know what I mean. Doesn't seem notable. Recury 17:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Playing trombone in a piece of music for a minor film doesn't meet such criteria. D e lta Tango | Talk 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Studio musicians usually aren't notable unless they achieve notability on their own (e.g., Lisa Germano). OhNoitsJamie Talk 05:57, 20 October 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.
- 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 keep. The ikiroid ( talk· desk· Advise me) 17:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Apopka High School
Non-notable school, clearly an autobiographical article, written solely to glorify the school, odd formatting that is not in accordance with WP:MoS. Turn it into an encyclopedia article or delete. AmiDaniel ( talk) 04:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Provisional delete, if left in the current state - it's a very one-sided article, and per nom, should be deleted. However, if this article was completely re-written, or even stubbed, I could be swung to a weak keep etc. However, for now, delete. Daniel . Bryant 04:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Provisional delete, also. As it stands, the article is more vanity than substance, ignoring the type of information found in most articles about high schools in favor of a focus on football noteriety. Delete, unless significantly edited.Keep per edits made by WhisperToMe. Consequentially 05:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Delete per nom.TJ Spyke 05:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)- Keep It looks much better now. TJ Spyke 05:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - I trimmed lots of glorifying stuff and I am adding relevant information. WhisperToMe 05:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep after changes made by WhisperToMe. -- Gogo Dodo 05:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Article looks good in its improved state. -- Jayron32 05:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above. MER-C 06:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Let's not do the "schools are not notable" debate again. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 06:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I would still say delete as non-notable, but I do not recommend bringing high school articles to AfD, since it is unlikely to get consensus (for elementary and middle schools, it is less certain) and is more disruptive than keeping articles on schools that are non-notable, in my opinion. -- Kjkolb 07:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above Konman72 07:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep We have near-complete consensus that high school articles will be retained. In its current state, the article demonstrates that it more than meets the minimums needed to justify retention. Referring to "odd formatting that is not in accordance with WP:MoS" is a spectacularly poor reason to delete an article. This is yet another demonstration of the fact that this was an article that needed editing not deletion; AfD is a rather blunt and disruptive instrument to achive changes that could have been done in a far more productive manner. Alansohn 16:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep it. — RJH ( talk) 20:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep22:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as there has been near-complete consensus that high school articles will be retained. it also looks as article has been worked on recently as to some of the other issues. TheRanger 23:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep the edited version works for me.
ALKIVAR
™
03:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC) - Keep as amended Merchbow 15:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Another very large school, ergo notable. -- Necrothesp 18:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above. I am a bit disappointed that the nominator, who is an experienced admin here, did not tag the article for cleanup. Style issues are not a reason for deletion. Silensor 17:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, another non-notable school. —
ptk✰
fgs
20:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Question: I'm sorry, which article were you reading when you made this comment? Silensor 21:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I disagree that there is a "near-complete consensus that high school articles will be retained" and I disagree with similar comments. Those who think that they are not notable have simply refrained from nominating them for deletion and have even declined to recommend that they be deleted when they are nominated by someone else. It would be wonderful if there were more instances of people putting the project ahead of their own feelings. It has not been that long since the heyday of high school AfD nominations and a huge number of articles were kept because no consensus was reached rather than a because there was a consensus to keep the article. Not infrequently, the majority recommended to delete the article but most were saved because of the high threshold needed for deletion. A few even reached consensus to delete, but that was admittedly rare. -- Kjkolb 22:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and allow for organic growth, another notable high school needlessly nominated for deletion. Bahn Mi 05:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep one of our better school articles, and the 'schools are not notable' argument has been lost many times over already. Cynical 11:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. If an article needs cleanup please put a cleanup tag on, dont bring it to afd.... Jcuk 16:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, large high school. bbx 20:55, 20 October 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.
- 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 Delete, per WP:BIO. Naconkantari 04:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Andy Stephenson
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
He is a non-notable journalist. No evidence of any substantial publications. Internet allegations and rumors of both fraud and foul-play are used to smear his reputation and memory. One of the reasons that notability requirements are in place is to give privacy to friends and family of the deceased.
Note to closing Admin This AfD was spammed here per a note from one of the spammers below. -- Tbeatty 15:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Note to closing Admin This AfD was also spammed here. NBGPWS 20:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- who below pointed out the conservative underground spam? dman727 presented the link to DU.--
Tbeatty
20:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Redacted. NBGPWS 21:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Note to people coming from Democratic Underground -- Notability and Verifiability have very specific meanings in the context of Wikipedia, and this is especially important to understand when participating in an AfD. If you want to make a case for saving this article, please familiarize yourself with WP:BIO and WP:RS. New comments go at the bottom to keep the flow of the debate. Also, please make sure you sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). This records the exact account that made the post, as well as the time it was made. Taking the effort to do things the right way increases the chances that other editors will find your arguments compelling.-- Rosicrucian 15:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Note to people coming from Conservative Underground -- see above. VoiceOfReason 17:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator. -- Tbeatty 04:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The only refs on that page that meet WP:RS are the two obituary links. -- Aaron 04:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Morton devonshire 04:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Notability is debatable (refactored personal attack). I attempted to correct the factual inaccuracies some time back, and was never quite successful against anonymous reverters. See this diff of something I removed last night. (refactored personal attack) - Crockspot 04:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:BIO.-- MONGO 05:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Wow, a non-notable subject that suffers from factual issues. Em-jay-es 05:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Brimba 05:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep a google search turns up some nationally notable sources: several Seattle Weekly articles, as well as the subject of an HBO documentary . He's notable. However, someone needs to block the article from anon edits and remove all NPOV problems. It would appear that he is a controverial subject, but that is no reason for deletion. He has been noted in several national sources, and so is notable and verifiable. The article just needs a MAJOR clean-up and protection. -- Jayron32 05:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- STRONG Keep - His life, career and death are all notable. NBGPWS 07:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Karag 07:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Karag ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- STRONG Keep - This article needs a rewrite, not a deletion. His candidacy for Sec. of State in Washington and the fact that national news media reported on him is reason enough to keep the page, regardless of what you may think of him. ChildOfTheMoon83 07:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)*
- Strong Delete Not notable. He's only notable in the minds of some extremist attempting to exploit his death. I happened across this myself while looking at an extremist web site and it seems they are looking to start a sockpuppet compaign to spam keeps. Additionally his Secretary of State "candidacy" failed to garner any signicant votes [11] Dman727 08:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- StrongKeep Andy's life was notable and his death (refactored personal attack) Ken Burch 00:35, 16 October 2006.— Possible single purpose account: Ken Burch ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- CommentActually, user made a contribution to a different article before this AFD was opened, so incorrect to claim it could be a "single purpose account" Edison 20:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackbird71 ( talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: Blackbird71 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- StrongKeep Andy Stephenson's case was an online cause celebre of considerable note mainly because he was targetted and smeared by right wing extremists as he lay dying in hospital. To allow these same degenerates to now delete the memory of his death would be a tragedy. - alastair thomspon (co-editor http://scoop.co.nz) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.96.48 ( talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 203.97.96.48 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Conditional Keep: this article needs to be rewritten by a non-interested party and locked to prevent tampering. ( Therin83 08:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC))
- StrongKeep Andy Stephenson was a huge help to prove election vote tampering by the Black boxes. ([User: Erin Blair]]) 2:14 PM, October 16, 2006. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.204.188.208 ( talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 209.204.188.208 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Delete per nom, Aaron. Also, Crockspot's diff suggests article will be a vandal magnet. CWC (talk) 11:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Multiple verifiable sources per Jayron32. Page can be semi-protected if vandalism is a concern. Catchpole 11:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- emphatically, categorically, a STRONGKEEP This is a matter of preserving a historical record of a debate-- whether Andy will ultimately be proved correct or not is irrelevant to the argument. This isn't about whether Andy was right-- the thing is, eventually Andy became a story in his own right. That's why we have to preserve this. Period. (iandb1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.2.39 ( talk • contribs)
- Comment Delete comments have been removed here, here by User:Blackbird71 who's only contributions are to this article, reverted to correct state by User:Dman727. Khukri ( talk . contribs) 11:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep per Jayron32. - Serpent-A 11:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete as per Crockspot. Too much conspiracy theory and POV to make this article salvageable, and no sign of that changing. I feel this is one article where with the best intentions of any editor, it will descend in to unproven allegations. Khukri ( talk . contribs) 12:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The anticipation that a controversial article will have POV edits is not grounds for deletion. Editors will doubtless have it on their watch list and NPOV statements can be negotiated in the Talk page, per the best practices of Wikipedia. Edison 19:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and per Crockspot, these anon comments are quite annoying as well. Perhaps if its ever proven that "conservatives" ... killed him then I will change my vote. --
Nuclear
Zer0
12:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Why of course we killed him, right after we caused global warming and before we plotted to steal the 2006 elections.-- WinOne4TheGipper 17:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above, I might change my vote to keep but rewrite if notability can be established (how close was the secretary of state election, did he generate a lot of mainstream media coverage, etc) GabrielF 13:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Ck4829 14:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:BIO, and all the sockpuppet/SPA votes aren't helping. NawlinWiki 14:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, not seeing the notability. Keeping the article to "honor his memory and work" is not a valid reason to keep. The march of the meatpuppets on this article is shameful and Wikipedia does not put articles up to "honor" people, no matter how noble their causes.-- Rosicrucian 14:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Andy's work, to have everyone the right to vote and to keep fraud from happening should be honored. Keep the page for his memory. -- sakabatou19— Possible single purpose account: sakabatou19 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- STRONG KEEP Andy's work should be respected. This page is an honor to him. -- Haruka3_2000— Possible single purpose account: Haruka3_2000 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Strong keep Andy made a strong contribution with his work (refactor personal attack) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.115.31.179 ( talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 83.115.31.179 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- STRONG KEEP - I don't understand why it needs to be deleted. It should remain up in honor and respect for his hard work. It's also a memorial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.16.234 ( talk • contribs)
- STRONG KEEP--Mr. Stephenson's work played a large part in preserving democracy. I can't understand why anyone would want to delete, as Andy worked for all of us----His life revolved around making sure ALL our votes are counted.---Booli—The preceding unsigned comment was added by BOOLI ( talk • contribs) 14:59, 16 October 2006. — Possible single purpose account: BOOLI ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
Arbitrary Page Break 1
- STRONG KEEP - Absolutely notable. Is subject of a documentary film now in production by Michael Moore, Numerous press mentions while he was alive, radio and television interviews while he was alive including CNN and MSNBC. Was very active in the e-voting seminar circuit. And the circumstances of his death spawned three web sites, several press articles, and much radio discussion. (refactored personal attack) BenBurch 15:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Ben you are so hypocritical, remember when you went on your own little leftist purge on trying to delete the conservative underground page and the protest warrior page, leftist hypocrisy is truly disgusting—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.237.72.55 ( talk • contribs) 18:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC).
- Comment Which documentary? Moore's IMDB page only lists three films in production right now, and none of them seem to mention Andy Stephenson. The "Hacking Democracy" HBO film does not seem to be associated with Michael Moore.-- Rosicrucian 15:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Not listed there. I have been cooperating with his production team on the project I refer to, which is on the subject the American medical services delivery system. BenBurch 16:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- So, Ben, you have also claimed that Conservative Underground will become notable when Sicko comes out, (also related to the Stephenson controversy). If you are using future mention in an upcoming film to prove notablility here, to be consistent, you would also have to apply the same standard to the Conservative Underground article, which at the time of the AfD, you did not. I believed you even mentioned at that time that CU would eventually become notable because of this film, and could then have an article on Wiki. So by your own previous arguments, this article should be recreated when and if Sicko makes him notable. Crockspot 20:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- So Stephenson is mentioned in Sicko? If so, do you have a reliable source that can be used to verify that? It can't really be included in the article on anecdotal evidence. Beyond that, if Sicko is the film you are referring to, Stephenson does not seem to be the primary focus as you implied.-- Rosicrucian 16:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Nope, just my say-so. You can decide if you want to be embarrassed by having removed an article for a notable (but politically embarrassing for right wingers) individual who becomes even more notable upon the release of this film or not. Like all Michael Moore films, the documentary jumps from story to story to build a theme. Andy is one of those stories. People want to bury this story, but it isn't gonna happen. BenBurch 16:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Your "say-so," like anyone else's (yes, even mine), is not good enough, Ben. Jinxmchue 17:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Let's wait for the documentary then. This is an encyclopedia. We would rather be right than early and that includes whether or not an article should be kept. -- Tbeatty 17:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Seems be newsworthy and blogworthy, but doesn't meet encyclopedic level of notability. Deli nk 15:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Especially per Jayron32, and why again was this nominated? That information took moments to find... · XP · 15:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Andy who?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.214.154.104 ( talk • contribs)
- 135.214.154.104 appears to be an open proxy.
BenBurch
17:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- A whois lookup shows this is registered to Cingular Wireless as part of their dynamic range. Thus, while it is an anonymous IP and part of a dynamic range, I see no evidence it's an open proxy.-- Rosicrucian 18:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- 135.214.154.104 appears to be an open proxy.
BenBurch
17:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep Needs clean up and better sourcing ("a discussion forum post"? twice???). Jinxmchue 17:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- STRONG KEEP per BenBurch. Attempting to delete this article about a true American hero is an obvious Stalinist plot by neocons to whitewash Wikipedia of all reference to Republican vile crimes against humanity. PCock 17:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)— PCock ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment Those making "Stalinist" remarks would do well to assume good faith about their fellow editors and avoid personal attacks.-- Rosicrucian 17:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- We can assume good faith even in the face of evidence to the contrary, I suppose. Politically correct discussion is important, after all, while we are making an unperson out of somebody inconvenient. BenBurch 17:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- The reason for these rules is that they further civil discourse on Wikipedia, and ensure that people of differing PoVs can establish consensus. Casting aspersions about motives and making this into an emotional argument only raises the wikistress of all involved.-- Rosicrucian 17:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- If I were you I would be taking this time to show notability, remove the unprovable conspiracy theories and add reliable sources. before this AfD reaches consensus (if it does). Not to be making assupmtions about the politcal beliefs of those who have voted on this article, in good faith I might add, and who have no interest in your war of words. Like on most AfD's I'm willing to be swayed, but slandering those who disagree with your viewpoint as Stalinists, knocks your chances. regards Khukri ( talk . contribs) 17:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment No assumptions are being made - they're facts. Several the editors involved are part of what some consider to be a 'Conservative Hit Squad' here on Wiki. Crockspot, who is in constant contact with Tbeatty, nominated another researcher on voter fraud, Bev Harris, for speedy deletion on the same day. Two voter fraud investigators being nominated for deletion on the same day, by two proven activist conservative editors? [12] [13] NBGPWS 20:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I recommend that the vote of any editor with less than 500 total edits to en.wikipedia be ignored. :o -
Crockspot
17:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- actually, the standard for sockpuppets is 50 edits which would apply to almost all of the SPA accounts above.—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Tbeatty (
talk •
contribs)
17:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC).
- I know, I just dropped an extra 0 in there for the benefit of BenBurch. He has enjoyed putting high edit count bars on his past afd's, and I rather enjoy watching the steam come out of his ears. - Crockspot 17:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm going to second this recommendation. It is quite obvious that there is now an influx of sockpuppet "votes" (most likely thanks to a post on the Democrat Underground - remember, DUers, this is not an actual vote where the majority wins) with ridiculous rants about "obvious Stalinist plot[s] by neocons to whitewash Wikipedia of all reference to Republican vile crimes against humanity."
Jinxmchue
18:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I have it on good authority that this AfD is going to be closed by a Diebold electronic voting machine! ZOMG!!!!111!1! -- Aaron 19:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- An editor who makes a good argument based firmly upon our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines will be counted, however new xe is. Equally, an editor whose argument is that "we must have a memorial" (contrary to our Wikipedia articles are not memorials policy) or whose argument is wholly based upon personal testimony about future events (contrary to our verifiability and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball policies) will not count, however many edits xe has. Uncle G 19:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- actually, the standard for sockpuppets is 50 edits which would apply to almost all of the SPA accounts above.—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Tbeatty (
talk •
contribs)
17:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC).
- Keep, properly cited article that establishes weak notability Valoem talk 18:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Arbitrary Page Break 2
- Super Duper Strong Keep Great american heroes like Andy should be memorialized into stone, rather than washed down the memory hole of the Bush dictatorship. You people pushing for delete should be ashamed of yourselves. How can you sleep at night? It also possible that the people recommending delete were also part of fringe right that contributed to Andys death by denying him the funds for surgery, and now they wish to erase that stain on their soul.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.102.254.33 ( talk • contribs) 19:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC).
- I sleep very well on my Rovomatic Adjustable Bushbot Bed, given to me personally by KKKarl in payment for killing Andy. It's super duper comfy. - Crockspot 20:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Damn. Someone went and used the Super Duper on us. I guess the debate is over. Dman727 20:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. Wildthing61476 19:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The blogs are not strong sources for notability, but the article from the Seattle newspaper establishes most of the disputed statements about his work on showing hackability of electronic voting systems, and the circumstances of the interference with fundraising to pay for his final medical expenses. There is also a reference from a current HBO movie in which his contribution is documented. Notability rather than need for a memorial is a good basis for keeping the article. Edison 19:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete After sifting through this AFD and looking at references here and in the article, it's clear that the subject of this article has been the subject of some national media attention. But this does not automatically bestow the level of notability necessarily for inclusion in an encyclopedia. I don't see the media attention as signficant, or the newstory as much more than transitory. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 20:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- *STRONG KEEP* Andy is clearly notable as any thinking person would know. Attempts to delete this fine man are evidence of the hand of Rove at work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.159.148.121 ( talk • contribs)
- Comment if you cannot explain why Andy Stephenson is notable, or reference your vote to another editor who you agree with, then no he is not "clearly notable" for the purposes of this AfD.-- Rosicrucian 20:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep per Jayron32. The HBO movie is a good enough claim of notability for me. However, this needs cleanup and better sources, blogs and web forums aren't usually good sources. BryanG (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Just out of curiosity, would it matter to you if he was the subject of the movie, or just got a passing mention in it? It might matter to me and change my vote from delete to keep, if he was the subject of the movie; but that doesn't seem to be the case based on the reference in the article. Deli nk 20:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Probably not, the question of how much he's in the movie (which doesn't come out until next month, I believe) is why my !vote was weak in the first place.
BryanG
(talk)
21:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- I would not. Personally I've been mentioned in a few newspaper articles and even was referenced in a documentary several years ago. However Im far from noteable. I don't believe that anecdotal references in media are equivalant to being noteworthy. Dman727 21:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Probably not, the question of how much he's in the movie (which doesn't come out until next month, I believe) is why my !vote was weak in the first place.
BryanG
(talk)
21:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- comment I still support a keep for this article, but the whitewash being attempted here is NOT helping the cause. Merely yelling that he is worthy is NOT the way to get the article kept. Even if hundreds of people came down on the side of this subject's sainthood, it does NOT make the subject worthy. CITE SOURCES. NATIONAL MEDIA. RESPECTED THIRD PARTY INFO. That sort of thing. Now I did my part finding stuff on a guy I frankly couldn't give two s&!#$ about. If all you people are SO hell bent on getting the article kept, do the research, cite respected sources, rewrite the article, and make it up to standard. Otherwise, just let it go. All you are going to do is cause the admins here to delete and protect the article from ever being recreated, which would not serve your purposes. Also, WikiPedia is built on community concensus. Become an active part of the community if you want your opinions to be recognized. Merely getting 100 random anonymous people to spam this AfD with requests to keep will NOT make it happen. -- Jayron32 20:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I ask that the nominator, Tbeatty, document his assertion. "One of the reasons that notability requirements are in place is to give privacy to friends and family of the deceased." If true, hundreds of articles on people with backgrounds as varied as Polly Klaas and Jerry Garcia may need deletion as mentioning their untimely and tragic deaths 'violates their family's privacy rights'. NBGPWS 21:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment We seem to have been visited by some sock puppets posting lampoons of how they think a DUer would respond to this topic... Not sure if it is an attempt at humor or an attempt to discredit those who support KEEP. BenBurch 21:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- No, they are dead on as to how DUers are responding to this topic. All one needs to do for proof of this is read the Democrat Underground thread [14] that brought you all here. Jinxmchue 21:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- I was brought here by my watchlist...
BenBurch
22:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Alright. More coincidence, I guess. Jinxmchue
- That's kind of funny. I thought the same thing, except that I thought you were one of the lampooners with your original Stalinist comment. [15] :) -- Ed ( Edgar181) 23:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I ask an investigation be started into the strange 'coincidence' of two of the best-known voter fraud investigators being nominated for deletion on the same day, by two well-known conservative activist Wiki editors, three weeks before national elections where voting fraud is a major concern! [16] [17] NBGPWS 21:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- If you have a dispute, that is a matter for dispute resolution rather than requesting an investigation while in the middle of an AfD.-- Rosicrucian 21:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- I think your time would be better spent researching and improving these articles to keep them on Wiki than to worrying about some imagined "Vast-Ring Wing Conspiracy" designed to cover up imagined voter fraud. Jinxmchue 21:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Nothing 'imagined' about this orchestrated effort to purge info by activist Conservative editors:
- "Someone removed your prod from the Andy Stephenson article. You'll have to do an AfD. Crockspot 04:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC):Done. -- Tbeatty 04:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC) Andy Stephenson deletion discussion is -- Tbeatty 04:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC) Check out the diff I posted on the AfD for a good snort. Crockspot 05:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)"
-
NBGPWS
23:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- So what exactly is the conspiracy? I "prod"ed the article prior to AfD. (if you don't know what "prod" is, go find it). He let me know that the "prod" failed. AfD is the next step. --
Tbeatty
23:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Sure - it's just sheer coincidence that two MAJOR reseachers into voting fraud got nominated for deletion for non-notability by you two on the SAME DAY. Out of the THOUSANDS of questionable articles, you chose those two to nominate for deletion. No agenda there!
[18]
[19]
NBGPWS
00:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm... let's think how else we could explain this while still assuming good faith... maybe, just maybe, those two people happen to read articles about political figures and voting because of their interest in the subject, and noticed that these two articles merited afd'ing? -- tjstrf 01:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Smearing editors and accusing them of having an agenda is not what AfD is for. Again, if you wish to pursue this, follow the steps of dispute resolution.-- Rosicrucian 01:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oh Cool. I didn't know Bev Harris was up for AfD. But since the proposals in the history were speedy and prod (both non-voting deletion processes) I will have to wait for the full-blown AfD. Thanks for the heads-up though so I can add Bev Harris to my watchlist. -- Tbeatty 07:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Sure - it's just sheer coincidence that two MAJOR reseachers into voting fraud got nominated for deletion for non-notability by you two on the SAME DAY. Out of the THOUSANDS of questionable articles, you chose those two to nominate for deletion. No agenda there!
[18]
[19]
NBGPWS
00:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- See, that's one thing about having an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. People's biases can and do affect it. Have you been a paragon of neutrality? I certainly doubt it. Even I have had times where I have not been entirely neutral about topics. And that's where another thing about having an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit comes in. Other people can have a say in it and balance out things. Compromise is important here. As far as your accusations go, I would suggest you drop them as they are unprovable and inflammatory. They will result in nothing but back and forth sniping and bad feelings. Jayron32 and others have improved the article considerably since it was nominated for deletion. Why didn't you do anything to improve it? That would've been considerably more helpful to your cause than making these ridiculous accusations. Jinxmchue 14:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- So what exactly is the conspiracy? I "prod"ed the article prior to AfD. (if you don't know what "prod" is, go find it). He let me know that the "prod" failed. AfD is the next step. --
Tbeatty
23:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- First, allow me to express how delighted and honored I am to be referred to as a "well-known conservative activist Wiki editor". My father is smiling in Heaven. Second, I inserted a {{prod-bio}} into Bev Harris mainly because I knew (refactored personal attack) , but it certainly helped that the article did not assert Ms. Harris' notability, and was very nearly unsourced. I didn't discuss it or coordinate it with anyone else. The person who removed my tag has done some improvement, so in the end, it was a positive move. Third, I welcome any investigation. I am protected by Teh Hand of Rove, and your Fitz are belong to us. - Crockspot 03:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- comment the existance of sockpuppets or strawmen in support of or opposed to this article has NO BEARING on its inherent notability. The identity or political leanings of people involved in either the nomination or the debate have NO BEARING on the the subjects notability. Does the subject show up in the national press/media? Is the subject notable for the things they show up for? If yes, the subject should stay; and probably be protected from anon edits given the level of controversy. If no, the subject should be deleted, and also be protected from recreation. Either way, the personalities of the editors involved in these discussion should have NO BEARING on the results of said discussions. -- Jayron32 21:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It appears that there are adquate references which are verifiable and reliable to establish Stephenson's notability for his work regarding the weaknesses of "black box" voting and his running for secretary of state of Washington. Kitty Hammond 22:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Kitty Hammond ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
Arbitrary Page Break 3
- Merge, against inclusion in Wikipedia He may merit mention in a relavent article on the subject of electronic voting fraud. The individual himself is not notable. (note to closing admin: this !vote has a very specific title because I wish it to be treated in a specific manner during the closing. In other words, this merge should not be counted as a psuedo-keep.) -- tjstrf 22:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The most notable thing about him is the conspiracy theory, which is completely unverifiable. Rumors, conspiracy and inuendo do not belong in an encyclopedia.
Resolute
23:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Really? MORE than half of the Vince Foster article is about the kooky right wing barking moonbat conspiracy theories that Clinton had Foster killed! NBGPWS 00:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Then go edit the Vince Foster article. If you feel that another article needs work, then by all means take it on! However other article have nothing to do with this particle article. Dman727 01:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Unlike this article's theories about Stephenson's death, the theories about Foster's death are at least well-sourced. Additionally, talk of Foster's death was widespread at the time. The theories about Stephenson's death are limited to far-left forums like DU. Jinxmchue 14:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- When Stephenson gets two independant counsels to investigate his death, I will be the first to vote Keep. Even if there is no conspiracy. -- Tbeatty 01:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable, despite the inadequacies of the article. -- TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 23:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I did some minor searching on Stephensons candidacy for Secretary of State. It appears to be unnoteworthy and Stephenson did not garner any signifant percentage of vote. [20] 12.159.148.121
- Given that I do not find his duties at BBV noteworthy, nor his candidacy, I've revised my opinion to Strong Delete
Dman727
01:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. The website you are linking to contains General Election results, not Primary. Keep in mind Stephenson ran as a Democrat, and dropped out on June 26, 2004 (presumably around the time of the primaries), although I don't know if that was before or after the Primary, or what percentage of the vote he earned.
I stand by my "Strong Keep", but I believe now more than ever the article badly needs a NPOV, as well as some locks to dissuade right and left-wingers (and their sockpuppets) from vandalizing it. It's also worth mentioning that a friend and supporter of his, William Rivers Pitt, publicly called into question the operation and circumstances of his death. Stephenson's SOS candidacy, the HBO documentary and the presence of his name and activism in notable news sources convinces me that this should still be kept. But some drastic measures need to be in place so that this page (and perhaps other political pages as well) is protected from extremist vandals, whether they frequent DU, FR or any other blog or message board. ChildOfTheMoon83 03:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
As a journalist, I thought the situation that Stephenson was experiencing with regard to those who hassled him on his deathbed was curious enough to devote an entire article on it See http://www.coastalpost.com/05/06/01.html I personally spoke with Peter Angelos and he confirmed that he used his influence to help make Stephenson's cutting edge pancreas operation at Johns Hopkins Med Center a reality. I think that Andy Stephenson was and will always be one of the voices for truth, at a time when the mainstream media would not know truth if it came up and bit them on their butt. If Vince Foster has a wikipedia entry, and he is only mourned at this point by his family, then Andy Stephenson should have an entry - he is mourned by his family of thousands of voting activists across the country. When I originall y posted the story at my newspaper, I truly believed that the right wing cabal had influenced PayPal to withhold the needed funds. Since then I have learned that that version of PayPal did that to many of its subscribers - they withheld monies probably just to have the interest on the funds. EBay has since acquired PayPal and it now operates in a more legitimate manner. Currently Stephenson will be honored with mention in a HBO documentary on the election process in the day of electronic machinery. He is also someone that Dorothy Faddiman focuses on in her documentary "Stealing America". The Coastal Post comes out once a month in hard copy that is sent to 18,000 subscribers in Marin County, California. It also is on the web. I own all copy that I write, once it is out and on the newstand. My opinion is to StrongKeep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.218.153.212 ( talk • contribs) . — Possible single purpose account: 12.218.153.212 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- comment I don't expect the previous contributor to return, since he is not a regular editor, and is only here to make this singular plea. I will still make these comments for anyone who cares to read them since they bear clarification over why the above arguement, while obviously heart felt does NOT MAKE A STRONG KEEP CASE. Comparing the Vince Foster article to this one does NOT do the keep side justice. Articles are not kept on the merits of the relative goodness of the subject, ONLY on the relative notability and verifiability of the information in the article. Idi Amin is not missed by many people, while my Grandmother was really one of the nicest people I have ever met. No one would claim that my grandmother needs an article more than does Idi Amin. Simply argueing that because Foster was not well liked, while Andy Stephenson was a true patriot does NOT have any bearing on whether one should be kept and the other deleted. A quick perusal of the Vince Foster article indicates that it is HEAVILY referenced to NATIONAL MEDIA sources. Now, if you will note, I have voted and am still voting keep. I may even (if I have the time) try to improve the article. But to all of you people who claim to know and care about Andy Stephenson (and honestly, I could give a flying f^(& about him) if you want to keep the article, FIND REFERNCES and IMPROVE THE ARTICLE so it will meet the already well-established standards. You could do no better than to look at the Vince Foster article and seeing how it is done there, since that is an EXCELLENTLY SOURCED article. -- Jayron32 03:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- comment A quick perusal of the article you referenced at length should have provided you adequate evidence that the author, Carol Sterritt, is a she, not a he as you wrote. (unless you happen to know this particular Carol to be a man like Carol O'Connor) NBGPWS 04:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- reply Fine, its written by a she. I never assigned a gender to the author. I DID assign a gender to Mr. Foster, who I believe still qualifies as a he. -- Jayron32 04:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Coincidentally, a different anon editor invoked the Foster article on my talk page today. I, too, pointed out the vast divide in the quality of the sourcing between the articles. Part of the problem is that the controversy surrounding Andy was largely played out on blogs, which are, at best, sometimes allowed as primary sources only. The few secondary sources (I'm thinking of the Ferrari article), are not accurate, in my opinion, and based upon posts of hers that I read at the time. How do you reliably source such a thing? I don't think you can. Crockspot 04:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Fixed the article Well, I did my best. Check out the article now. For extensive explanation of my fixes,. please see the talk page where I explain my fixes and rationale. It should be up to WikiPedia standards from the WP:MOS to a point. Its still really stubby, but the article should have enough verifiable references to allow it to be kept, as long as the DU people don't ruin it by mucking the article up again (if they really are his supporters, why not play by the rules and try to get the article kept???) -- Jayron32 04:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith and don't bite the newbies. "only here to make this singular plea." is assuming good faith only if a new editor stated that was his intention. I expect a number of Wikipedia editors were drawn here by a desire to edit one article and went on to edit thousands, just as voters are lured to register to vote by one wedge issue but go on voting.
Edison
06:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- You are right. I make an unqualified apology. I do hope that all of these people who commented do stay and learn to become good WikiPedia editors. It would be unfortunate if their only exposure to WikiPedia editing is through this highly controversial topic. They all seem to have something to add to the topic, and I only wish they would do so in a way that was more constructive and actually improved the article in question, or added to this debate in a meaningful way. However, I do admit that the comment you note was in bad taste on my part, and I retract it. -- Jayron32 06:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Not notable - it is now well sourced and the pure fiction has been removed. But he is still not a notable person. He isn't extensively published (notability for a journalist) and he doesn't have multiple mainstream media coverage (notability for an activist). Tbeatty 04:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- reply Fair enough. The HBO documentary and Seattle Weekly citations do provide the mainstream portion. Multiple is weak, I will admit (OK, its only 2). But I have given the articles supporters a head start. Surely all those people who know and love the subject so much have references at the ready (CNN, NYTimes, Newsweek, or even widely read local papers) and can continue the work I have done. If not, though I still vote keep, it may be beyond my help at this point. -- Jayron32 05:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- In the article I see 3 articles in West Coast local papers, 1 each in the New York Times, the Washington Post and The Guardian (London), one story on Fox News plus an HBO movie. Several of these mention his national campaigning for voter verified paper trails and his Secretary of State candidacy. Pretty impressive notability compared to many WP bio articles. Edison 07:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- There are other articles on electronic voting. It seems a mention in those would be adequate and deserving. Maybe Black Box Voting?. -- Tbeatty 05:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment to closing admin: When considering Tbeatty comments, please note their contribution history. POV/advocacy warrior for right wing American political activism. · XP · 08:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment to closing admin:I wholeheartedly concur with the above comments by XP. A look at Tbeatty's contributions on Wiki will find his activity almost exclusively limited to highly charged political topics. NBGPWS 08:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment to closing admin: True or not, that has nothing to do with the arguments he presents here and should not discolour your evaluation of the debate. -- tjstrf 09:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- You are more than welcome to file an RfC or ArbCom if you feel that strongly about it. You may also take your complaints to my talk page or any of the admin noticeboards if you wish. But commenting here is not appropriate and I have warned you on your talk page to AGF. -- Tbeatty 09:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- You should hit them both with {{ npa3}} or {{ npa4}} tags. Such statements are direct and blatant violations of WP:NPA (which is policy, not a suggestion.) -- Aaron 16:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Please quit refactoring people's comments that aren't personal attacks. That could be viewed as censorship, or worse. Don't you support 'freedom of speech'? NBGPWS 09:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Arbitrary Page Break 4
- comment This is one of the WORST bad faith nominations I've ever seen. HBO's 'Hacking Democracy', which prominently features Andy Stephenson debuts Nov 2. [21] That ALONE established notability. Also, the nominator's justification is fallicious on two counts, and should be ruled as such. Andy was not primarily known as 'journalist' as the nominator claimed, but as an activist. The nominator has also failed to defend his claim that "notability requirements are in place is to give privacy to friends and family of the deceased." If that were true NO individual who died prematurely and/or tragically would have the circumstances of their death discussed. No info surrounding the deaths of Curt Cobain, Polly Klaas, Jerry Garcia or HUNDREDS of other persons could be discussed if Wiki were to follow this anomalous and aberrant line of reasoning. NBGPWS 06:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment He is non-notable. You cite the HBO synopsis of the Bev Harris HBO program. Stephenson is mentioned once alongside the non-notable Susan Bernecker, Kathleen Wynne (Cleveland), Hugh Thompson (Security Innovations), Ion Sancho and Harri Hursti. All of whom are MORE notable than Stephenson and also lack the notability to be in Wikipedia (all red lines at the time of this post). Second, the logic you've applied is backward. The Notability Standard, which Stephenson fails, is in place to protect non-notable people from the public spotlight. All the persons you mentioned are Notable. Stephenson is not. And third, to be notable as a journalist one must have received multiple awards for journalism. To be notable in general, he needs multiple writeups in major publications for multiple events. He does not have that. He is in the paper for one thing: Black Box Voting. Most of the articles (i.e. the Guardian) are opinion pieces. The hard news items are almost exclusively local writeups about the single topic of black box voting. His obit seems excusively local. That does not make him notable enough for Wikipedia inclusion. Black Box Voting has an article in Wikipedia and anything relevant about Stephenson can be included there. Please stop casting aspersions on the motivation for the AfD. It is a form of personal attack. -- Tbeatty 07:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- USER
Tbeatty When are you going to defend, or retract your assertion that: "notability requirements are in place is to give privacy to friends and family of the deceased."?
NBGPWS
08:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- I already have but you can see Jimbo's response to a similiar question. In that case, the hubsand of a non-notable person asked that her bio be deleted. A user made a similiar assertion to what you are making. -- Tbeatty 09:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- USER
Tbeatty When are you going to defend, or retract your assertion that: "notability requirements are in place is to give privacy to friends and family of the deceased."?
NBGPWS
08:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
So now YOU are speaking on behalf of Andy's family and are claiming that they don't want his death discussed - or you just PRESUME this by extrapolating from the TOTALLY different situation involving the staffer of Joe Scarborough who was found dead, and her surving husband's express wishes that her death not be discussed? Which is it? NBGPWS 09:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- I've never claimed any such thing nor is your false choice ever been supported. I said One of the reasons that notability requirements are in place is to give privacy to friends and family of the deceased. That's it. It's a simple truth. Stephenson is non-notable. Being a non-notable person affords him and his family a level of privacy from scurilous charges about fraud and fake deaths being repeated on Wikipedia. Further, the notability requirements of Wikipedia should keep him completely anonymous except for perhaps a passing reference in Black Box Voting.-- Tbeatty 09:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- "To be notable in general, he needs multiple writeups in major publications for multiple events." Incorrect, and misleading. If this was the case, we would have no article on
John Mark Karr or other "one hit media wonders". Every write up was due to one thing: his made up confession. You are mistaken. ·
XP ·
08:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- No, I don't think so. I doubt John Mark Karr will survive AfD once the newsiness dies down. Unless he is charged or convicted of a crime, he is non-notable and he will not be in Wikipedia for long. But of course, this AfD is about the non-notableness of Stephenson, not Karr. -- Tbeatty 08:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- "To be notable in general, he needs multiple writeups in major publications for multiple events." Incorrect, and misleading. If this was the case, we would have no article on
John Mark Karr or other "one hit media wonders". Every write up was due to one thing: his made up confession. You are mistaken. ·
XP ·
08:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comments:
- We would, of course, merge useful info (mostly refs) into Black Box Voting.
- Barring some investigative reporting by a reliable journalist, Wikipedia's ban on original research means all we can say about the poor guy's death is "some people claimed X but other people claimed Y", which will satisfy very few people.
Comment to Tbeatty: Please show me where in WP:Notability People you find evidence of policy supporting your claim: "One of the reasons that notability requirements are in place is to give privacy to friends and family of the deceased." Wikipedia:Notability people NBGPWS 13:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment to NBGPWS This is in WP:NOT however: Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered.. Wildthing61476 13:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Multiple MSM mentions, plus 19,500 Ghits for "Andy Stephenson" + voting, plus HBO documentary = Notability. NBGPWS 14:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment This is an AfD. This is about whether this article is encyclopedic and notable by Wikipedia's standards. There is no standard by which we can judge whether this is a "good faith" or "bad faith" nomination, nor should we, because Wikipedia requests that we
assume good faith and
avoid personal attacks. I'm noticing a distinct lack of
civility in this discussion, and the closing admin will likely note that as well. This is not about Tbeatty, Crockspot, or anyone else and their political affiliations. That is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and if you feel they are conducting a purge of articles based off of their PoV, this is not the place to address that. Those involved have repeatedly been admonished to take their dispute through the
standard resolution process and have persisted in carrying on said dispute on this AfD's page. I just want to state to all involved that you need to take this to talkpages, RfC, ArbCom, or really anywhere but here. If this continues here I will post a request to the
Administrators' Noticeboard to end it the hard way.--
Rosicrucian
15:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Second I would like to reiterate Rosicrusians point. The notability of the subject is INDEPENDANT of the political activism, political positions, rudeness, bad faith, or any other fact about any editor here or anywhere else. Either he is notable or he is not. Provide evidence to support your view, and leave it at that. Opinion or evidence of perceived wrongdoing by another editor does NOT have ANY bearing on the article at hand or this AfD and should be left to other venues at WikiPedia, such as talk pages or RfCs. Such discussions should not be carried on here. -- Jayron32 18:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, the article doesn't demonstrate a level of notability. The material the person has written may be relevant in some articles, and the person may be worth mentioning in short somewhere, but I don't believe the subject warrants an article of its own.
First of all, this deletion debate's journey started with the wrong foot - every time someone posts "hey, everybody, vote for/against deletion" in some forum, the whole debate gets rickety. Consider this from my point of view: I'm uncaffeinated enough to not be able to read the above discussions; AfD is supposed to be a simple place to follow. A pre-emptive hug of consolation to whoever admin has to close this mess!
That said, I need to evaluate the current state of the article: Okay, so here we have a journalist... who has done some mudslinging at voting machines... and failed to get elected to an office... and died. In my opinion, that doesn't yet pass the "more important than average professor" gut feeling, even if you have media mentions and like. There's lots of journalists in this world, there's lots of prominent electronic voting critics. There's a whole bunch of also-ran election candidates, who have consistently been deemed nonnotable (for that merit alone, barring other claims of fame) in Wikipedia. Lacking these, this is more of a merge material or something completely forgettable. -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 15:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)- For the clarity, the "prof test" is at WP:PROF. My point is that if there were similar test for journalists, this person wouldn't pass it. -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 15:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Not sure what all the fuss is about here. The article is abundantly sourced and the ample sources substantiate sufficient notability. Gamaliel 16:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Per WP:BIO, "the person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." I'm not a fan of the political ideals that Stephenson promoted, and I find Democratic Underground to be a rich source of unintended humor, but what I like least of all is when people can't resist dragging politics into Wikipedia. Stephenson plainly meets WP:BIO, the good faith of many of the voters here both pro- and con- is plainly questionable, this article should never have been nominated for deletion, and it should be kept. VoiceOfReason 17:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Where has he been the primary subject? -- Tbeatty 17:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Here, for one. Look, if you'll check my history you'll find that I've started more than my share of AfDs, and though you won't see it in my history I've been responsible for quite a few speedy deletions and successful prods. I don't like seeing garbage cluttering the encyclopedia. I'm all for uncontroversial deletions. But when there's any doubt, as there certainly is here, I have a very strong bias in favor of keep; it doesn't really hurt anything to leave the article in place and I am certain that a number of people, learning about Stephenson from other sources, have visited Wikipedia to get more information on him. The activities of Stephenson during his life and the major Internet controversy surrounding his last days are more than sufficient to make him notable. Yeah, his politics were kind of silly and his "research" into voting methods highly questionable, but politics does not belong here. I reiterate my opinion that this article should clearly be kept. VoiceOfReason 18:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Additional comment The article may very well fail WP:NPOV, but the remedy for that is rewrite, not deletion. VoiceOfReason 18:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- I actually agree with you about the politics, that's why I put this up for deletion. There is no reason to bring the internet controversy to wikipedia and that is what was happening. Black Box Voting is notable and he certainly is a part of that. But a human interest writeup in Seattle Weekly is hardly noteworthy as meeting the inclusion criteria for WP and that's my problem with this entry. As you have seen from the multiple SPA writeups, this article has become a memorial to an otherwise non-notable person. I listed the six or so other people on the upcoming HBO show that are also non-notable (as is the show) but the topic IS notable and that is where they deserve mention. One article: Black Box Voting -- Tbeatty 18:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment He spent years travelling around the country as an activist and specialist or expert on security flaws of black box voting. He was written up and quoted in numerous newspaper of international circulation. He testified at numerous hearings on machine certification. The campaign against him by right-wing blogs was documented in newspapers. This is all besides many thousands of internet mentions in sites concerned with verified voting. Edison 18:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- reply Please provide citations to his testimony. If he testified, a record exists. Please find references to say so. Also, if the campaign to smear him was mentioned in newspapers, please cite those papers. Also, see my additional comments below -- Jayron32 18:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The "campaign against him by right-wing blogs" that "was documented in newspapers" is the part I have a problem with. Ferrari's claims in a newspaper are completely different than Ferrari's claims on blogs. She was documenting what was going on in real time on the blogs, but months later, she suddenly is telling newspapers completely contradictory information. The info in the newspaper article cannot be independently verified, but it can be debunked by Ferrari's own statements on blogs. Of course, blogs are not reliable sources, though her statements on them might be usable as primary sources. The article as it looks right now is not too bad, and I am ALMOST inclined to switch to a keep, but I cannot be assured that the smear campaign that existed when this article was first nominated will not return, therefore, I am holding firm on my delete vote. If you want to look at a pretty good archive of all the blog activity during the event, check out the www.scamdy.com forums. They captured everything relevant there. Crockspot 18:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It looks like someone has added more references. The subject's involvement in the electronic voting debate has been referenced to the following respected sources now: the aforementions Seattle Weekly and HBO citations; FoxNews, who quotes his opinion in the field of electronic voting machines and fraud; the Seattle Times, which quotes both him and Bev Harris repeatedly with regard to the use of electronic voting in a specific Washington state election; The Guardian, a British newspaper, calls him an expert and cites both him and Bev Harris WRT their work on the Diebold machines specifically and specifically applies their work to potential problems in the U.K. (establishing international relevance); The Washington Post has much of the same as well. These sources establish the notability of the "Black Box Voting" organization, and clearly establish both Andy Stephenson and Bev Harris as co-equally notable in the topic as well. The fact that Ms. Harris does not have an article yet does not mean she is not notable; indeed I am certain it will be remedied soon. What more burden of verifiability do you place on this subject? These are not just Op-Ed pieces or articles by friends of the subject. RELIABLE sources cite his work in the field, and The Guardian even uses the word "expert" specifically to refer to him... -- Jayron32 18:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect and merge verified material to
Black Box Voting or Delete as failing
WP:BIO. The relevant standard is
WP:BIO. He won't meet the "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field" test, because the contribution, which may or may not enter the enduring historical record was Black Box Voting's, not his, and he did not lead the organization. A failed candidacy is not a basis of notability by Wikipedia standards. He fails the "primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person" test by not being a primary subject of anything in a
reliable source except his obituary. (The result on this test could change in the future, but not by blog posts about him.) He doesn't meet the "achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" test because the reliable sources continued to need to explain who he is (mostly associate director of BBV) every time they mention him. I appreciate the effort by
Jayron32 to clean-up the article.
GRBerry
18:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- reply now that is a reasonable arguement. I respectfully disagree; but that is the tone that should be taken on AfD. Also, Edison has made significant contributions; and there are others. I still posit that the additions make him notable. They also make the subjects of Bev Harris and Black Box Voting notable as well. -- Jayron32 18:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The fact the Bev was the director and he was the associate director in no way prevents him having an article in relation to his activities in the organization. Scott Palmer is Dennis Hastert's assistant and he has his own article. Stephenson has well established notability in his own right. If he is in the news, the fact that he was for a time part of the Black Box Voting organization does not somehow transfer all his notability to that organization and prevent an article about him.
Edison
19:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The term "smear campaign" is ambiguous in these discussions. To some it means that Freepers and others alleged that he was not sick, didn't have cancer, didn't need the money for an operation, and that he was just looking for money for personal use in general. Scamdy reports calls to the hospital and to the supposed surgeon, who could not legally release any info to outsiders in any event. The Scamdy website is self documenting with posts made blogs denying that he legitimately needed money for an operation and that he was gravely ill. It is also described in the Seattle paper articles. To others "smear campaign" means the claim made in 2005 that the aforementioned right-wing campaign caused his death by preventing the hospital getting the money in time for an operation to be done around March 10, which is not well documented. He had an operation toward the end of May and subsequently died. This was apparently disputed for some time. What part of that is POV? Edison 19:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The fact the Bev was the director and he was the associate director in no way prevents him having an article in relation to his activities in the organization. Scott Palmer is Dennis Hastert's assistant and he has his own article. Stephenson has well established notability in his own right. If he is in the news, the fact that he was for a time part of the Black Box Voting organization does not somehow transfer all his notability to that organization and prevent an article about him.
Edison
19:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep per VoiceOfReason. Weak because just scrolling through this flamewar was an effort, so I can't honestly claim to have read all of it. Maybe there were even more brilliant arguments that I just didn't read. Can't people restrain themselves to, oh, 5 paragraphs each or so? Please? AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- comment The existence of the website and forum Scamdy a forum with over a dozen subforums - specifically focused on discussing Andy's life, death and the controversies surrounding both - which claims that one subforum alone was read over 750,000 times - provides even more evidence of the notability of Andy's life and death. NBGPWS 20:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- The forum does not appear to be evidence of notability at all. The forum has less than 2500 posts, whereas many web forums can claim that many posts for a single user. You're really reaching here.-- Rosicrucian 22:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. Forums specifically devoted to discussing the lives of others from a critical point of view, like the forums discussing Keith Olbermann, Rush Limbaugh, etc, exist because those people are notable. If Andy and his work weren't notable, they wouldn't have started an ENTIRE FORUM about him. NBGPWS 22:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Anybody can start a webforum. It's not hard. These days they're the equivalent of having a Geocities site. Everybody and their brother has one. With very short notice one could be started on any topic you could name.-- Rosicrucian 22:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- You're wrong. Neither my brother nor I have forums about us, or anybody else. NBGPWS 00:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Now you're just being intentionally obtuse. The point is that a web forum is not evidence of notability. A web forum with an extremely low post-count as web forums go is even less compelling in an argument for notability. You are grasping at straws.-- Rosicrucian 00:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Remember to comment on content, not on the contributor. Thank you. NBGPWS 03:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- The content is that you are purposefully ignoring the point. I have cast no aspersions about the contributor other than that your argument in this case is nonsensical.-- Rosicrucian 03:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per wwwwolf. Not reading all this discussion, just the article, there's no compelling evidence of notability at the WP:BIO level. Sandstein 20:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep because he achieved notability among a small subset of the online community, if nowhere else. Also, I would advise user NBGPWS to refrain from any tagential outbursts and stick to the subject under discussion. Ruthfulbarbarity 22:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Notability among a small subset of the online community is not encyclopedic notability. It's not even close.-- Rosicrucian 22:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Not exclusively the online community. I think there were a few articles devoted to the controversy in alternative newspapers-although I could be mistaken-but yes, most of the publicity surrounding him was generated by large online communities, e.g. DailyKos, Democratic Underground, Free Republic, etc... I'm not going to argue vociferously against this article's deletion, because I don't think he is that notable, but I'm simply expressing my belief that he is of minor notability at least. Ruthfulbarbarity 22:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm mainly just arguing back that said "minor notability" as you describe it doesn't seem to correlate very well with WP:BIO and the standards it applies.-- Rosicrucian 23:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- comment I see that the article is once again pushing false claims about the freezing of funds prior to Andy's surgery. I retract my earlier statement that implied that I was teetering on my delete vote.
Crockspot
14:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- reply I removed unreferenced statements. Everything in there is now verifiable. -- Jayron32 20:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I spotted this nomination in AfD earlier on and was not sure on its status and decided not to just throw in a "vote" either way (hence, assuming good faith). The article did have references, and the subject "appeared" as a possible keeper in Wiki. Both sides of this debate have made good points, but wwwwolf’s input is the most convincing of the article and I agree with those points mentioned. Delete as nominated. JungleCat talk/ contrib 14:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Response to wwwolf's comments I think wwwolf has made one of the best delete arguements here, but I would like to counter it with some points. 1) He seems to figure prominently in the upcoming HBO documentary "Hacking Democracy" He is not the sole subject; but its not a biopic, it is about the entire topic, and other sites attest to his recognized expertise in that topic. 2) Several sources have specifically cited him for his work, and quote him specifically with regards to his work, or even call him an expert (The Guardian reference, for one example). He meets primary notability criteria: He's referenced in several reputable sources in a non-trivial way. 3) His notability is not necessarily as a journalist per se but as an activist. As an activist, he is certainly significantly more notable than the average activist. His appearence in several reputable sources in a non-trivial manner attests to that -- Jayron32 20:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree with CWC that the article is something of a vandal magnet, but so is George W. Bush. Vandalism and NPOV problems are reasons for patrolling, not deleting. JamesMLane t c 23:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Everybody pretty much talked out? No consensus for deletion, as evidenced by the extent of discussion here.
Edison
04:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Second I second that motion. Here here... --
Jayron32
04:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment That is not our decision to make here.
JungleCat
talk/
contrib
05:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Correct. The only real way to get this closed early would be to invoke
WP:SNOW, but that clearly doesn't apply here.--
Rosicrucian
16:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Correct, with obvious discussion and disagreement above, plus solitiations of outsiders to come here, this will stay open until a closing admin decides 1) which arguments from Wikipedia policy are stronger and 2) who they are going to choose to disenfranchise as not being an established editor. Plus, AFD runs for five days (plus however longer it takes the admins to get to it and decide the right answer - obvious closes generally close close to on time, things like this usually take longer). Then after that, somebody will decide the admin got the closure wrong, and it will go to deletion review. I can spell the deletion review coming on this already, and am not looking forward to it. GRBerry 16:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Correct. The only real way to get this closed early would be to invoke
WP:SNOW, but that clearly doesn't apply here.--
Rosicrucian
16:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment That is not our decision to make here.
JungleCat
talk/
contrib
05:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Second I second that motion. Here here... --
Jayron32
04:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Everybody pretty much talked out? No consensus for deletion, as evidenced by the extent of discussion here.
Edison
04:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete. While there are a lot of references, the article does not appear to show that this person was notable. Vegaswikian 21:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. It is on the borderline of notability, but I'm going to go with the benifit of the doubt. 11kowrom 01:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. i did some googling on this one. he is mentioned quite a few times in the nationwide mainstream media in his role as associate director of black box voting and also as candidate for office. he also has some coverage specifically on him via seattle weekly. while hardly overwhelmingly notable, this seems enough to me to keep around. it's also worth noting that this nom is part of a concerted AFD campaign, which i find extremely irritating on principle. Derex 04:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete A mess of an article for a minor figure. Piuro 18:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Barely notable figure whose barely notable status will only last a short time before he's likely forgotten. -- Strothra 22:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, oh, and let's cut the votes please, this is a !vote -- Tawker 03:53, 22 October 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.
- 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 delete. -- Core des at 07:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Uk.media.tv.misc
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
Non-notable newsgroup. Fails WP:WEB. 258 ghits [31], mainly groups.google and forums. A strong case of WP:AUTO and WP:COI. see here. -- IslaySolomon | talk 16:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. UMTM is a newsgroup, not a website, so I'm unsure if WP:WEB is strictly applicable. However, I note item 3;
| “ | The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. | ” |
- UMTM is re-distributed through Google Groups.
- Also, this group sees a significant amount of non-spam traffic, comparable to
other newsgroups with wikipedia articles. --
Billpg
16:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Google Groups does not qualify. it is just a simple unfiltered web interface to the raw newsgroups themselves (all of them - reaching back to the early 80s). Since it feeds all newsgroups equally, it cannot be used to determine if a newsgroup is unique or notable enough to rise above the noise and be listed here. The WP:WEB bullet you posted intended for things like flash animations, podcasts and other media that is plucked from the teeming mass of available media and re-broadcast by respected sources. (moved my comment so the discussion flows better - the multiple : used in the previous comment confused me) - CosmicPenguin ( Talk) 21:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Usenet newsgroups don't get articles by default; they have to be notable somehow. This one isn't. -- Aaron 16:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I don't see notability. Deli nk 18:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. An encyclopedia should be objective. A very subjective decision is being made here about "notability". There is clearly meaningful traffic on the NG and a definite "community" of regular posters. Either allow this, or allow none.
MurunB
20:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- This comment deleted by poster. Wow fab groovy 12.35, 19 October 2006 (BST)
- Notability isn't subjective. Does it satisfy WP:WEB? — Dark Shikari talk/ contribs 23:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not a notable newsgroup, and I have posted there. Fys. “ Ta fys aym”. 21:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Popularity within its own community does not a notable subject make. (little bit of Yoda there). I am active in several forums, for example ones regarding computer games I regularly play. Some of them are VERY active for game forums, with thousands of active members. Notability, however, can only be established from OUTSIDE of the subject in question. Have people who DON'T contribute note and reference this newsgroup? Are there verifiable, reputable, third party sources that can attest to its notability? If not, then the subject is not notable. -- Jayron32 04:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I read the group and occasionally post. I agree totally with the points made by Jayron32. Arganoid 21:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. U.m.t.m is one of my regular newsgroups and creating the page was a bit of fun, but I'm not sure it really adds anything. mh. 18:26, 18 October 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.
- Strong keep: Can be narrowed down to the highest subnational entities in different countries. Provinces and territories of Canada, states and territories of Australia, states and the D.C. of the United States, for example. Passer-by 17:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- 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 delete per WP:BIO, WP:V/ WP:RS, and WP:SPAM (the version that was nominated). The one reference in the stubified version is not about the subject of the article, which does not help its case. Article is being protected from re-creation until it can be shown that a neutral, non-self-promotional article can be written on this figure. -- Core des at 07:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Mimi Rothschild
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
Spam Dcobranchi 19:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete and marked as such. Wildthing61476 19:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Dcobranchi and/or others using that name have a several year history of spamming Ms. Rothschild (the subject of this article). She has been the recipient of repeated unwelcome contacts from individual(s) using "dcobranchi" and similar variations of this 'name'.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmandel ( talk • contribs) — Hmandel ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Somebody at an IP address registered to Learning By Grace, a company owned by Mimi Rothchild, originated the original wiki entry that was deleted as advertising. This one was edited to reflect Mimi's well documented history with charter schools in Pennsylvania. Mimi is not worthy of a Wikipedia entry and hopefully she has learned from this that Wikipedia is not a venue for self promotion. I support the nomination for deletion.-- IAATM 20:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- At least one article on Ms. Rothchild has already been deleted. Both that one and this new one were originally written in the style of an advertisement, and thus were inappropriate. This one has been edited by several people to both tone down the advertising and to include reference to Ms. Rothschild's involvement with the controversial Einstein charter school, an important part of Ms. Rothschild's history in the cyber-education field. The information about Einstein was verifible and cited credible references. If there is to be an article on Ms. Rothchild (and I can see the argument either way), it must be written in a neutral point of view, the information must be verifiable, and it must not be a veiled advertisement for Ms. Rothchild's current projects. People who wish to make changes to this article are encouraged to use the talk page for the article to work out their differences. Stargirl7 21:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Mr. Mandel's (Ms. Rothschild's husband) claims above are fabrications, and even were they true, are irrelevant to the current discussion.
- Sorry that was me. I forgot to sign in. -- Dcobranchi 22:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non notable. But I have reason to believe this is some kind of nonsensical game by the nominator and the above commentors. All of the above who have red links on them have at some time contributed to this article [39]. Why did they not delete it at that time instead they reverted vandalism and expanded it as well. Also the above red link users have around 50-100% of their contribs to this particular article or related stuff. Check out all of their individual contribs.
Dcobranchi [40] Stargirl7 [41] IAATM [42] -- Ageo020 ( Talk • Contribs) 00:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, if you remove all of the advertising from the current version, there's not much left:
"Mimi Rothschild is a child’s rights advocate" - not verified or supported.
"has authored a total of seven books on children’s education including Cyberspace for Kids" - I'll accept this.
"is the founder of several, distinguished online homeschooling academies" - distingushed is clearly advertising, the rest is OK.
"all created to assist homeschooling families with their every educational need" - advertising.
"Mimi Rothschild has helped change the face of education" - unsupported opinion. "using her own homeschooling experiences with her eight children; both Mimi Rothschild and her husband have reshaped the homeschooling experience for families all over the world" - again, advertising and unsupported.
"The Jubilee Academy, The Grace Academy, and The MorningStar Academy are all online homeschooling academies" - this is fine.
"that offer homeschooling parents innovative tools to educate their children in the home environment." - as do any other online schools; this description of an online school is better put on a page about online schools.
"The homeschooling academies that are overseen by Rothschild offer courses that are rooted in the Christian faith and the teachings of Christ." - advertising, though it could be modified to work.
"With a firm focus on the child’s individual development, courses are structured to address the unique needs of every child. Each course provides the child with the opportunity to improve their socialization skills, better their ethics, and to openly learn about the world in a real world setting." - advertising, plus veering away from being about Ms Rothschild herself.
"The MorningStar Academy offers 140 courses and courses focus on subjects such as English, Mathematics, Science, Art, Music, Technology, Health, History, Global Languages, Bible Studies, and more. Each course is created to meet the needs of the child that has attained a particular grade level of proficiency, and all of the homeschooling courses offered at The MorningStar Academy are structured to meet the needs of homeschoolers at particular grade levels, from elementary to high school levels." - again, this is more about the school itself rather than Ms. Rothchild, and generally is typical of all such schools.
"Included with the course enrollment, homeschooling families are offered an array of educational services including a 180-week lesson plan, educational transcripts, regular progress reports, access to a video library, and academic counselors are readily available to assist homeschooling parents with questions and concerns. The Grace Academy follows suit and offers courses for children that are kindergarten level to high school level. Meanwhile, the Jubilee Academy online differs from the Morningstar Academy only in the fact that it offers homeschooling parents the opportunity to start their homeschoolers early with a pre-school program. Further, each of the academies offers CD Rom based lessons for homeschoolers, a course catalog for children of every age, interactive Internet activities, and avenues of digital and paperless learning." - this is pure advertising, and again is about the schools rather than Ms. Rothschild.
Taking out the advertising, you are left with: "Mimi Rothschild has authored a total of seven books on children’s education including Cyberspace for Kids and is the founder of several online homeschooling academies. The Jubilee Academy, The Grace Academy, and The MorningStar Academy are all online homeschooling academies." (This is of course leaving aside the question of whether Ms. Rothschild's involvement with Einstein should be included.) I believe this article should be either deleted as advertising, or modified to include only verifiable information about Ms. Rothschild. (Note that this article was "speedy-deleted" once as advertising, but was re-posted.)
- Yes, it was speedy deleted the first time, and then Mimi (or her representative) decided to repost the advertisement. Since it was apparent at that point that we were playing whack-a-mole, several people decided to edit the article instead so that it was an accurate representation on Mimi Rothschild's contribution to cyber-schooling. You'll note that the article Mimi (or her representatives) object to is written in a neutral POV, and includes citations to other reputable sources for all included issues. The only version that has any business being on the wiki is the latest stargirl7 version. I and others are willing to agree to a delete just to make Mimi go away. However, what we won't stand for is her willful misrepresentation of her own history, thereby potentially misleading unknowing people that are researching her current cyber school operations. Anybody thinking about spending $2000 a year with her business has a right to know all the facts, not just the facts Mimi wants to advance.-- 71.161.45.242 00:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- That is me above - thought I was signed in. -- IAATM 00:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- At a minimum Ms. Rothschild satisfies the "Google Test" - 79,000 results, first 10 results are all for the person in question, and, excluding the Answers.Com mirror of Wikipedia, all are different domains and different content. On the other hand, all that the most recent stargirl17 edit really tells you is what Rothschild's most basic and verifiable claims are, plus stuff about the Einstein controversy -- all of which can also be learned from scanning the first 10 entries on Google; the top result is anti-Rothschild, and the next down (after Wikipedia) is Rothschild's own site. I'm very slightly in favor of keeping the article, but given the amount of reverting going on, I'm not sure whether any kind of a stable page can be achieved -- and while she might be important enough for a short article, she's not important enough for everyone to keep worrying about it. Lloannna 03:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Lloannna ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- If you put the name in quotes it is only 866 Google refs. More than a few of those hits are press releases for her academies.-- Dcobranchi 14:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- So, to sum up the comments so far, I don't see anyone arguing that the article should definately be kept. It's pretty much all "delete"s or weak "keep"s, so current consensus seems to be "delete". Anyone want to chime in and make a stronger case for keeping this one? Stargirl7 19:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete After reading the various versions, it doesn't appear that there IS any way to make a strong argument for keeping this. Given the history of prior deletion, I don't see how this isn't just another attempt at self-promotion, albeit worded slightly differently. OddAud 20:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- This appears to be advertising. I would like to see it deleted but if it is kept, then I think all of the facts should be allowed to be included even if it is negative information. Jumpinginpuddles 15:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Jumpinginpuddles ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Delete and protect. Self promotion spamming, likely to be repeated if deleted without salting. - Amatulic 23:16, 19 October 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.
- 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Linda Christas International School
|
ATTENTION!
You can participate and give your opinion. Please
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! |
 | Please sign your comments with four tidles ( ~~~~ ). Please do not use ALL CAPS or bolding, as your comment will be modified. Anonymous editors may comment on the Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 16. |
Attempt to get around Linda Christas. Serial spammer-- Francisx 19:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- if this is re-creation of previously deleted material then it should be speedied. Pete.Hurd 22:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Google "Linda Christas International School." This isn't a real school. There are no references outside of Wiki-Spam. These people have been spamming dozens of Wiki-articles marketing their company.-- Francisx 02:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know. I thought the material had been recreated in this article form the deleted and protected article Linda Christas, if that was the case (I don't know what the contents of that article were) then this AfD is unnecessary and the article should be deleted on sight. Pete.Hurd 03:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- note to closing 'crat please verify that this is not merely a recreation of the Linda Christas should a "keep" consensus emerge. Pete.Hurd 03:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- This was the version deleted at the old afd; they're different enough that I wasn't comfortable speedying it while I was cleaning up its satellite articles. The old afd was closed early as a speedy, anyway, so it's not g4able. — Cryptic 04:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This appears to be a good-faith article about a school. High schools are generally notable. -- TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 23:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Please provide some evidence of the good faith you see, as I see nothing but spam. User:Zoe| (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- I see no evidence that Truthbringer has actually read the article in question, it's certainly not a highschool. But he has perused the article history to extend invitations to the sockpupets^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H authors of the article to come here and vote [43] [44]... Pete.Hurd 03:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- A pre-university school is most commonly known as a high school, although there are exceptions, such as a CEGEP. If the school is actually a tertiary or post-secondary institution, then we should remember that most such institutions are notable. I left the {{subst:adw|NAME OF ARTICLE}} messages on the talk pages because the nominator had chosen not to. Remember that WP:AFD states: "It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the article that you are nominating the article." Some comments refer to this school as a business. The context suggests that it is a not-for-profit charitable organization, but I have been unable to confirm this. That having been said, I feel that the term "crazy" is offensive and inappropriate, and I would ask the person who used that term to withdraw it. I think that the material that Richfife found ought to be mentioned in the article. -- TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 04:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- I added a Chilling Effects link to the article. Here's a link to the blog in question: [45]. I can't decide whether it belongs in the article proper or not. - Richfife 05:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- FYI: None of the full time staff appear to have any sort of advanced degree and only one has an official teaching credential: [46]. The "Linda Christas College Fund" makes no mention of actually ever having funded anything: [47]. They do list their goals, though. - Richfife 05:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Linda Christas College Fund is a 501c4 student advocacy group citation needed. That is NOT what is being shown on Wikipedia. What is being shown on Wikipedia is the School. If we are going to be critical, let's at least get our facts in order.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oppieangel2000 ( talk • contribs) 14:35, 18 October 2006.
- Having done some original research (I know we're not supposed to do that) and called around, I've found no evidence that LC International School has been accredited. Unaccredited schools are not normally notable. This appears to be a for-profit business of dubious notability. Long history of spamming Wikipedia should certainly raise eyebrows.-- Francisx 14:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Original Research is a good way to help you find secondary research, which can then be included. Good work! - Richfife 15:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Original Research doesn't belong in articles. The use of OR in AfD debates is not only legitimate, it is arguably necessary to evaluate claims made. Pete.Hurd 16:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep We have my brother's high school on Wikipedia. What's the diff. Actually, someone should have left the original Linda Christas alone as well. Too many editors who have emotional problems at Wikipedia. Another example, someone is going out of their way to put the word FUCK on Pat Boone's site, and reference to Amway. But the same person deletes that Pat Boone is President of the University Board at Pepperdine, and holds a chair at Linda Christas in honor of the black and blind concert Pianist John William Boone. I mean, the editor likes Fuck and Amway, but not Pepperdine University and Linda Christas. He's done it about ten times. Doesn't say much for the judgement of the editors. I'm going to put it in again. See if you see it when you check. I assume that the REAL editors of Wikipedia might agree that Pepperdine is a bit more notable that Fuck. Well, maybe not. Oppieangel2000
- — Oppieangel2000 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User:Zoe| (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It With schools in Poland, China and the United States, I think this school is more than notable. Butchalliran
- — Butchalliran ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User:Zoe| (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- KP It One small reference on Wikipedia to LC helped me find this great school. They literally saved my son's life. Keep It Keep It Thelystrom
- — Thelystrom ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User:Zoe| (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Extreme delete. NO references, zero Google hits for "Linda Christas International School" outside of Wikipedia spamming. This is worth reading. User:Zoe| (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It From my research, LC is a reputable school. The link Zoe sited is obviously written by a nut. If we delete this one, lots of good schools would need to be deleted also. imho! Tech27
- — Tech27 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User:Zoe| (talk) 02:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- EXTREME KEEP IT I counted 42 hits when doing a Linda Christas Search on Google. One of the reasons we have such a poor public school system is that every time a significantly good alternative comes along, a zillion people who are employed by the public schools pan it. This is unfortunatete. In addition, check out these same people who want to delete things on Wikipedia, they put such negative garbage in their own stuff. My goodness. If Wikipedia descends to their level, it will be worthless. GeorgeStanton
- Surprise, surprise. — GeorgeStanton ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . User:Zoe| (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Funny, I get ZERO Google hits when I look for "Linda Christas School". But so what? The article is titled "Linda Christas International School". If there is no such thing, then there should be no such article. If you think this school is so wonderful, then it should be really, really easy to provide reliable sources. User:Zoe| (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- delete as per nom. Pete.Hurd 03:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. No reliable sources, no verification or even substantial verifiability, not written according to a neutral point of view, not enough press coverage or publicly available resources to even allow us to write about it with a neutral point of view. Furthermore, it appears to be connected to a campaign to spam Wikipedia. Delete it and protect against recreation - this is the most perfect deletion candidate I have seen in a long time. Captainktainer * Talk 03:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It I think people are missing the point here. Linda Christas is a three country school. Wikipedia has one horse town schools in the Encyclopedia, so what is the problem with Linda Christas other than it's a good place for kids. Also, people need to understand that the web site for all three Linda Christas schools is listed under just Linda Christas, not Linda Christas International. The International designation is relatively recent because of their success in China. So ANY hit you get with a Linda Christas search and there are lots of them is good for Linda Christas International. Also, I agree with one of the comments above. The people like The Taoist, and the Miles Williams of the world are really crazy. If those kinds of people win something like this, we are lost.— 71.142.236.117 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- What are the addresses and phone #'s of the Linda Christa schools in Poland and China? All I see on the site are some faded photos that look like they were scanned from old postcards. - Richfife 07:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, Keep It I think that a lot of the trouble here is that one has to look at who and what Linda Christas has accomplished. I mean Sue Grafton, Pat Boone, Efrem Zimbalist Jr. and Alison Jiear don't lend their names to just any project. In the case of Mr. Boone, the only other school he is affiliated with is Pepperdine University. Are we going to say that Linda Christas is not notable. Efrem Zimbalist is a Pulitzer winner for cripes sake. Do you think that he would willy nilly allow his name to be used by scammers and spammers. Let's get real Wiki RolandPatina— RolandPatina ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Sue Grafton, Pat Boone, Efrem Zimbalist Jr. and Alison Jiear don't lend their names to just any project. Really? doesn't the evidence presented here suggest just the opposite?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.40.121 ( talk • contribs)
- delete, nn pyramid scam. — Cryptic 03:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per all above. Coordinated attempt at spam. Resolute 03:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Google search turns up 1) High pressure marketing 2) Complaints about scammish nature of the business 3) Legal attempts (copyright nastygrams, etc.) to shut up #2. No press coverage that isn't blatantly PR from the organization itself that I can find. This is not the first attempt to recreate under a different name. - Richfife 04:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The negative material I see on Google regarding Linda Christas has nothing to do with anyone or anybody who knows anything about Linda Christas. That's what's happening here. The negative posts are from people who a reasonable person would listen to and then do the exact opposite thing. A Taoist and a Racist. I mean, Linda Christas was accused of racism. Take a look at the faces on their Board. If one can call this school racist, then the KKK is not.
- Anyway, this school is worthy of being on Wikipedia. If one is counting socks, maybe not. But if one is really wanting to have something worthwhile on the data base then, for heavens sake, girls, back off. Linda Christas has been supported on D.C. Radio. New York City Radio (Public service radio - not high pressure sales radio). It has a record of ZERO BBB complaints unsatisfied. I mean this school is attacked everywhere it tries to help kids, and help kids they do (without one penny of our tax money). One lady wrote a letter complaining that she didn't like the name of the School and if they didn't change it, she was going to file with the BBB. I mean really!!!!
- So I ask you, why would you delete this school when if you just read the stuff that is said that is negative about Linda Christas you will see that none of the people complaining have a single child in the school. They just like to complain, as so many Americans do.
- Linda Christas is an elite school with some of the best minds and personalities in the world supporting it. Captain Jim Lovell (Apollo 13) is considering accepting a seat on the Linda Christas Advisory Committee, and NONE of the celebrities or scientists or authors that currently are on the Committee are paid a dime to contribute their leadership to the school. Again, if you girls are salvageable, there is no doubt about the merits of Linda Christas. This article needs to stay.
ShirleyDobbins
- — Possible single purpose account: ShirleyDobbins ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Keep If any of the components of the Linda Christas site are worthy of a listing on Wikipedia, I would think logically that the full site would also be worthy. People like Pat Boone, Efrem Zimbalist Jr, Sue Grafton, and Alison Jiear felt comfortable having their rather awesome names used in connection with this school. They all have Wikipedia listings. Wouldn't we say by extension then that Linda Christs is deserving of at least a small space. For example, the Pat Boone listing is several times the length of the proposed Linda Christas site. I say keep the site, and if necessary have some portions re-written although it seems pretty objective to me as it is.
- Keepyoursocksdry— Possible single purpose account: Keepyoursocksdry ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Keep Are you guys serious that you want to get all the trash from trashy people and put that in Linda Christas' write-up. Why??? The people who have written on the net anything negative about Linda Christas know nothing about the school. Just read the comments. It would be like including the 3000 unanswered BBB complaints that IBM currently has on file. Why not put that in the IBM article???? Because the complaints against IBM are generally made because there was a loose wire somewhere, and not necessarily in the equipment. If you go to legitimate sources for complaints like the BBB....maybe. But IBM's 3000 unanswered complaints ARE with the BBB. So now with Linda Christas that has had ONE BBB complaint in nine years, and that one not even from a family who had a student in the school, that's what you are going to use to characterize this school??? Is anyone seriously thinking that's an objective listing of relevant material or relevant to deciding whether this school is notable?— Bestofseven ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete or speedy as spam. With all the massive astroturfing and sockpuppeting going on, it's impossible to consider this a good-faith attempt at an encyclopedia article. If the school exists and is notable, it can have an article at a later date, written by an impartial and uninvolved third party. For now, we have no reason to perpetuate anyone's wikispam campaign. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - I fear not the awesome name of Efrem Zimbalist, Jr., especially when it comes to a high-pressure sales/marketing program like this. Robertissimo 12:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - non-notable advertising for a pyramid scheme that is trying to use Wikipedia to make a scam look legitimate. Protect to prevent recreation. -- Charlene.fic 12:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Is the school recognized or accredited by a recognized accrediting agency? -- TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 13:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- No, it isn't. I spent a good ten minutes calling around. No evidence that it's been accredited. Francisx 14:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- I notice that the "school's" e-mail address appearing here is "@lindas.com", odd that this "school" isn't in an ".edu" domain of some sort. Pete.Hurd 16:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and in a minor way per Andrew Lenahan. -- Nuclear Zer0 13:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. *drew 14:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment In addition to Richfife's helpful links above, this [48] from a dissatisfied customer is interesting and possibly enlightening. Robertissimo 16:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, spam - doesn't seem to be anything verified either.-- Nilfanion ( talk) 21:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
TO ALL OF THE NEW USERS WHO HAVE COME HERE TO VOTE "KEEP":
- Please realize that, in order for an article to be on Wikipedia, it has to
verifiable, with
reliable sources. the school's publicity and its website are not reliable sources, neither are testimonials from supposed well-satisified students and their parents. We need news articles from reputable newspapers which discuss this school. We need cites from books and magazines which talk about it. Until and unless those sources are provided, there is
no chance that this article can be kept, under our policies and guidelines.
User:Zoe|
(talk)
23:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- The new users who have come here to vote keep have, coincidentally, been confirmed to be from the same IP. [49] — Cryptic 22:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not because of the lame sockpuppets, which do very little to sway me in either direction, but due to the lack of verifiable sources. Find some and maybe I'll change my mind. RFerreira 01:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. No sources Googled it and Wikipedia was the only source I could find. Advertising spam.-- Lord of Illusions 06:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I see that all attempts to correct the unfounded assumptions being made by the reviewers here are being deleted. For example, the gossip with no substantiation or checking with Linda Christas is being allowed. But, anyone offering substantitive actual experience with the school is evidently not worthy of consideration.
- I am also a student at Linda Christas, and the student body is becoming amazed at the low level of research that passes for objectivity here. At least Opal was willing to give you guys a chance to correct these mistakes that you have been making. But, evidently Wikipedia is not interested in facts, just gossip. So be it. I sure am not going to recommend that anybody look to you guys for reliable information if a school like mine can be banned from being listed. I'm suprised you have Harvard listed. But you do. Also, Altamont Kindergarten. Now there's a notable school for you. I'll drop by to see if they even know you've got them. CYRIL LEE
- Caps removed by Naconkantari
- Keep it: Substantiation: 40 hits google 31 hits Yahoo 37 hits metacrawler. None of these hits except the three from people who weren't accepted by Linda Christas or certainly haven't had experience with the school are to be seen on this page.
Even the factual material on the site including trade references, government references, media references, and Advisory Committee references, all these were deleted yesterday.
I'd post them again, but what's the use. You guys don't want to hear anything but your own voices. I have asked the Linda Christas Help Desk if ANYONE has contacted the school from Wikipedia. The answer is a resounding NO. This is the same level of "research" that is typical of persons who love hiding under rocks. And, you call yourselves objective? Dr. Ethel Strom. Parent whose children attend Linda Christas and proudly so. Thelystrom
- — Possible single purpose account: Thelystrom ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. User:Zoe| (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Please post the Google hits for "Linda Christas International School ", since I found none. Perhaps your search comes up with different results from mine. But once again, as I said above, please read WP:RS. First person accounts are not reliable sources. We need neutral, third-party sources. User:Zoe| (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Dear Zoe: Perhaps we need you to contact the Linda Christas Dean for input. But, that's probably not acceptable. Trade references are third parties and they were posted yesterday and were promptly deleted. I first discovered Linda Christas in Curious Parent Magazine, and then again in a submission to the English teachers forum at the State Department.
- If all of this fuss is about whether this is a credible school, I would hope that Wikipedia has expended this much energy on all schools. I'm fairly confident that that is not the case.
- I have just Googled for Linda Christas again, and you are correct, most of the hits are from parents and students of Linda Christas. The only comments that are from third parties are those with zero experience with the school. And, of course, those are quoted above. They are indeed third parties, one from a blogger (no knowledge of Linda Christas, but plenty of opinion) and Miles Williams (a person so far to the left that no minority person would ever have to do anything to live in mansions. Good luck to Wikipedia if this is the standard. Dr. Mason Ridge
Drraymondridge
23:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- — Possible single purpose account: Drraymondridge ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. User:Zoe| (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- I have just Googled for Linda Christas again, and you are correct, most of the hits are from parents and students of Linda Christas. The only comments that are from third parties are those with zero experience with the school. And, of course, those are quoted above. They are indeed third parties, one from a blogger (no knowledge of Linda Christas, but plenty of opinion) and Miles Williams (a person so far to the left that no minority person would ever have to do anything to live in mansions. Good luck to Wikipedia if this is the standard. Dr. Mason Ridge
Drraymondridge
23:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Read this: WP:RS. When you've read it, come back and say so here: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Linda_Christas_International_School. Then we can discuss it. Thanks! - Richfife 23:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment Yes, I understand. However, this policy is like saying that if I call you a crook, then you must find a party who doesn't know you to deny the charge. I don't see how a rule of this kind can possibly end up with other than the grimmest innacuracies. You can see this kind of thing in action on this talk page. Only persons who don't seem to have the slightest idea about Linda Christas can be quoted, and all of them are certainly light years away from center. Dr. Mason Ridge Drraymondridge
- OK, I can see why you might feel that way. Yes, some people on this page feel that Linda Christas is not legitimate. I'm one of them. I could be wrong, so could everyone else. I think there are two issues in play here, each of them with different places they should be played out. If you don't like the policy of
reliable sources, then you need to go here:
Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources. We'll call that page #1. If you feel the policy is not being used correctly on this page, then this is the page to discuss it. We'll call this page #2. If you have complaints about the policy not being used correctly and complain about them at page #1, then no one will pay attention (wrong place). If you have complaints about the policy itself, and post about it in page #2, you will look like someone that only cares about this one article and no others. Wikipedians really hate that. We're here to make this a better resource across the board. -
Richfife
00:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I see your point here. But, I have no desire to begin a parliamentarian discussion of Roberts Rules. I just think that if the policies lead you to exclude a person or entity I know to be at the forefront of educational practice, if not theory, that is a disservice to anyone who might appreciate a look at the present with a bias (in a positive sense) toward the future. In that situation, only traditional organizations and theories will have an opportunity to meet with favor here, and in this age of speed and dynamic change, Wikipedia will become less desirable as a source than many of the established encyclopedias. (The yearly Americana is normally obsolete upon publication. That's one reason that Google and Metacrawler are consulted BEFORE Wikipedia. They understand the need for virtual change. Unless Wikipedia can overcome its own inertia, I'm afraid it will rapidly become massively redundant.)
- Said differently, accuracy is one thing;being the best is another. I had hoped (and still hope) that Wikipedia can maneuver out from under the weight of encyclopedic "tradition" and truly become the dynamic venture that was its original vision. To that end I am certainly willing to contribute to Wikipedia. I am, however, going to allow this issue with Linda Christas to be a litmus test for me. If with all the input now posted on the net, and with the trade references and reputations of the persons supporting Linda Christas, the rules of inclusion/exclusion have already grown so cumbersome (not to say Jurassic) at Wikipedia so as to exclude Linda Christas, Wikipedia has moved beyond my personal exclusion "Event Horizon." On the other hand, if obstacles to the publication of the newest and most eagerly awaited societal changes can be reflected in something approaching real time by Wikipedia, without a planetary eruption when "traditional" long term sources are not available, Wikipedia will indeed be the FIRST knowledge source ever to surpass the glories of a search engine by virtue of its scholarship. If you wish, I am willing to interview the principals at this school, and re-create something for you to look at. But, from my perspective what they have already provided to the Wikipedia authorities, seems sufficient to maintain their listing. I can certainly corroborate some of it myself. (For example, I have met and entertained Efrem Zimbalist Jr. on several occasions. He is a very family oriented individual who loved and respected his father and mother very much. With his work at the Curtis Institute (which I do not see mentioned on his listing with Wikipedia, and his acceptance of a chair with Linda Christas, I frankly don't understand how Wikipedia can exclude these facts. Let me know if I can help. Dr. Mason Ridge 71.143.28.120
- If this institution is indeed noteable for "[being] at the forefront of educational practice, if not theory" then surely you can cite some reliable, verifiable sources to substantiate that claim. -- ElKevbo 05:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Again, you've provided absolutely no way for anyone to verify your claim. You say Christas was in "Curious Parent" magazine. Is this it: [50] ? If so, it's very small. Which issue has an article about Christas in it? If Efrem Zimbalist is involved, why is his picture on the website a 50 year old headshot (He's 88 years old now)? Why not a picture of him with a staff member or student? Over and over again, all we get are testimonials ("Linda Christas saved my life!") and unsupported assertions ("Linda Christas is on the cutting edge of educational edge cutting!") You act offended that we aren't taking your word for it. Well, we're not supposed to. Wikipedia articles are considered guilty until proven innocent, and no evidence that has not provably come from outside of the Linda Christas organization has appeared. If you could get one of the celebrities listed as an endorser to come forward without any Christas employee acting as a go between and discuss their support of the organization, it would help, but it would probably not get the article all the way. Celebrity endorsements are not enough by themselves. Oh, and by the way, I often lose track of things here and there, but I never ever forget my own first name. You've been going back and forth between Raymond and Mason. - Richfife 07:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete due to lack of verifiability. Cynical 11:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: The problem with the reasoning above is that we are expecting an institution that is fighting hudreds of billions of dollars a year in tax money to do more than point to its theory sources. You are not going to find lots of people in the community saying "gee whiz" what a wonderful way to change the system. Both the Waldorf schools and the Linda Christas schools have been under attack for three or four years for their policies regarding introducing material to children when the children are ready for it rather than treating them like cookies.
- In my substantial travels, I have seen Linda Christas mentioned in several newspapers, albeit not the New York Times. One newspaper was in the Los Angeles area (Los Cerritos Community News), and the other when I was traveling in Oregon (Argus Newspapers) I have also heard Linda Christas mentioned on public radio at least in Watertown, New York (Their fund raising auction in 2005. Linda Christas had donated a scholarship to them to auction off.) And, as mentioned, you can find articles about the school in Curious Parent Magazine. Further, some public high school districts have recently been picking up the Linda Christas rules for selecting extracurricular eactivities, Dedham High School District, for example.
- (Start interjection)
- The "Hillboro Argus" or the "Argus Observer"? Which issue? Which issues of the "Los Cerritos Community News"? Which public radio station? What was the time and date? Which issue of "Curious Parent" magazine? There is no "Dedham High School District", but there is a "Dedham High School" here: [51]. Is this the correct school? Which department are you referring to? Who should I contact? - Richfife 15:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- (Stop interjection)
- There is also a blogging series that people can contribute to on the net. You can see that at www.lindachristas.net I believe.
- (Start interjection)
- This would provide extra detail to the article, but until there are verifiable sources for notability, there's no article. - Richfife 15:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- (Stop interjection)
- Keep in mind that Linda Christas is not a traditional school with a traditional campus, There are no buildings for the tax payers to support with the name Linda Christas over the doors. And, no reporters COVERING Linda Christas FOOTBALL. Linda Christas receives no tax money, nor tax favored money. They have approximately 4000 students internationally. I personally know two of the students currently studying to attend U.S. Universities next year who live in south east China (If it would help, I can ask their permission for you to contact them for verification.) You can contact any of the people on the Advisory Committee to ascertain the existence of the school if you wish. Surely, we are not going to be so petty as to deny that the MOST convincing and important material about Linda Christas, they have already published for the world to see.) Certainly that must count for something. If I asked the writer above to substantiate his or her existence, surely if Dr. Gregory Huckabee, former high ranking officer in the Adjutant Corps were willing to verify the fine work he/she (the writer above) were doing, wouldn't that be superior to his/her name being registered in a box score in the Baltimore Sun? Or are we so convinced that the traditional means of doing everything is what we want for Wikipedia. Dr. Shroeder P.S. I know Dr. Mason R. Ridge by reputation only. Is someone attempting to attack that good man? That would be sad indeed— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.241.76 ( talk • contribs)
- Note thusfar the following sockpuppets of Oppieangel2000 have been confirmed and blocked: Butchalliran, Thelystrom, Tech27, GeorgeStanton, RolandPatina, ShirleyDobbins, Keepyoursocksdry, Bestofseven, Synqopation, Referee36, Julieismywife, Buddydebrill, Manysummers. Also blocked as sock: Drraymondridge. Pete.Hurd 15:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- For a military article, Dr. Huckabee might count. For this one, not so much. I was replying to a post signed by "Dr. Mason Ridge", pointing out the inconsistency. You suddenly stepped in. - Richfife 15:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- I can not find any listing for a "Dr. Raymond M. Ridge" or a "Dr. Raymond Mason Ridge" in any professional directories. What is his specialty? Thanks! - Richfife 15:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant to say "Dr. Mason R. Ridge". Still no matches. Also and again, solicited testimonials from non-notable people don't count. We need notable people with relevant experience in the field speaking out entirely for themselves on their own dime, or it's a no go. - Richfife 17:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Not one of the Linda Christas Advisory Committee receives a penny for lending their names to LC for verification purposes. It is simply a pro bono arrangement all around. The only thing that the members of the Advisory Committee are guilty of is being impressed enough with LC to be willing to link their names and reputations with Linda Christas.
- Let me ask a question here: Let's take for our example the pioneering surgeon, Dr. Ronald Allison (put his name into the Google search engine) who sits on the Linda Christas Advisory Committee without pay. Is Wikipedia saying that BEFORE Dr. Allison knew enough about Linda Christas to agree to serve on the Advisory Committee without pay, he would have been a personage Wikipedia would have accepted for verification of its (LC's) existence. However, since Dr. Allison was evidently impressed enough to have his name linked with Linda Christas he is now disqualified? Does that go for the rest of the people who purposely allowed their names to be used for verification as well?.... though again NONE of the members of the Advisory Committee are paid a nickel for their efforts on behalf of the School. Is Wikipedia taking the position that if a celebrity or noted personality goes out of their way for FREE to help an organization, Wikipedia disqualifies that person or persons.
- Said differently, I am getting the impression that, since Linda Christas' intent was to recruit noted, responsible people to be on their Advisory Committee, so that parents could verify the quality of the Linda Christas offerings, this very act of getting the person on the Committee disqualifies that person from verifying that the School exists. So, let's say Captain Jim Lovell joins the Committee as he might, he's considering it, but like the others, wanted, of course, to investigate before committing. Now, BEFORE Captain Lovell completes his study of the School to decide if he can support its programs, before he has done that, Wikipedia will accept Captain Lovell's judgment in terms of verifying Linda Christas' existence. But, if he actually becomes enthused about LC and accepts a seat on the Committee, then he is disqualified according to the Wikipedia rules?
- It's really difficult for me to see the logic in that case. It would be like verifying that George Bush is still physically functional by disqualifying his Cabinet, and then asking the guard in the White House lobby for verification. Can this be? Can Wikipedia really have such a policy, and remain respected???
- I am just wanting to understand who in the world an organization might call upon to know enough about it to be favorably impressed, BUT NOT TOO FAVORABLY impressed, i.e. a level of impression that is sufficient for them NOT to want to help that organization, and yet having enough information to satisfy Wikipedia rules.
- I submit the names of the Linda Christas Advisory Committee for verification of LC's standing. There isn't a high school in the Nation with a more impressive board. Look at the boards of ANY of the high schools in your area or that have been previously listed on Wikipedia without fanfare. Other boards don't even come close, and yet, Wikipedia seems ready to reject what in effect is one of the finest assemblies of celebrity and doctoral talent for any high school in America. I hope I am somehow wrong here. I challenge anyone to try to find a better Advisory Group for a high school!! If LC is not listed by Wikipedia at the end of this discussion, I would say that the illogic of that decision would disqualify Wikipedia, at least in my mind, from ever being taken seriously. In that case, I would actually advise LC to stay away from Wikipedia. It would be a disgrace to BE listed if the logic I am hearing is accurate.I JUST DON'T BELIEVE WIKIPEDIA EDITORS ARE CARELESS OR ARBITRARY ENOUGH TO MAKE A DECISION OF THAT KIND. Please prove me right! BettyCharette
- (Can we get a sock check on BettyCharette?) You're referring to a list that appears only on the website. There is no public reciprocal acknowledgement from any of the big names on it. I've only been able to establish contact with one member of the list so far, but they have neither confirmed nor denied anything yet. What the high schools in a particular area do is not in doubt. What Linda Christas does is in doubt. All information about its doings has come through the organization itself. I can make grandiose claims too. - Richfife 20:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It: You guys are not even attempting to think this through. To have those people pictured on the Internet WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION would cost Linda Christas millions in law suits, and it would be all over the newspaper. Where is the logic here. (Remember Barbara Streisand sued an environmnetalist for 16 million for just taking a photo of her house and putting it on the net.) This seems to be a bit like the inquisition. I mean any thoughtful person it seems to me would understand the reality of public images, and how much money some of these people command just for an appearance. For images to be placed without permission would be financial suicide, not to mention the national press panning Linda Christas forever. I give up people. At this time, I really don't believe anything any commentator would say would persuade you of the illogic of what you are saying here. This is not a good reflection of the kinds of individuals defending Wikipedia's position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BettyCharette ( talk • contribs)
- "We must have the rights to do this because if we didn't we'd get sued" isn't an argument. We're trying to get at truth, but we're not getting past truthiness. - Richfife 20:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
KEEP IT: I agree, it's NOT an argument, It's the ONLY argument that means anything. That you don't accept it is marvelously illogical from my perspective. Why would a separate list anywhere mean anything?(I can put one on the net if you would like. I'll just write a blog, eh. Would you accept that? Of course not. Who do you think is going to be wanting to compile the Advisory Committee list of a private school? As an experiment, why don't you choose any celebrity. Then, go ahead and copy a photo and put your name next to it saying that the celebrity endorses you. I'm certain you wouldn't do that. WHY. You know why.
BettyCharette
- Already commented above. Naconkantari 21:12, 19 October 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.
- 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 delete. -- Mr. Lefty ( talk) 23:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Frankie Dunlop
Was originally put up for speedy-deletion, but there are Google results. P.B. Pilh e t / Talk 22:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete for no content.
JHMM13 (
T |
C)
23:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC) - Delete & Redirect - CrazyRussian talk/ email 23:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy A7, no assertion of notability (and redir where?)-- Nilfanion ( talk) 20:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, under CSD A1, and CSD A7. I'd delete it myself, but since its here already... Tito xd( ?!?) 20:59, 17 October 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.
- 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 "speedy" delete. -- Core des at 07:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Mu Beta Zeta
vanity page for NN-organization at some North Carolina summer camp DesertSky85451 23:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy. Clearly nn.
JHMM13 (
T |
C)
23:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete A7. No notability at all, likely vanity. Google renders 9 results, Yahoo 6 (all unrelated).-- Hús ö nd 03:58, 17 October 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.
- 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 no consensus. Please defer merge discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Madison Country Day School
Primary schools are generally not notable, generally it is only high schools that are listed. I find no reason why this school has any reason to be listed based on its notability. It also fails the proposed guideline WP:SCHOOL. TheRanger 23:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Fails to assert notability.-- Hús ö nd 03:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Does not meet WP:SCHOOL. Catchpole 06:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Verifiable and notable. Merchbow 15:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Please explain how its notable you have left same reply on several AfD's without details. TheRanger 19:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with the school district page per WP:SCHOOLS. — RJH ( talk) 20:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Merge due to lack of content. Cynical 11:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all enduring public institutions. --
Centauri
14:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. This is an unreasonable position, as it implies having a Wikipedia article for every DMV office. Here, this user incredibly claimed to favor that. Pan Dan 22:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge. Do not keep. Vegaswikian 21:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, not super notable but the school exists and is verifiable. All schools have some encyclopedic value. bbx 15:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Centauri and bbx. -- Myles Long 17:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all schools are notable to their community, notability is a relative term and not a valid deletion criteria, verifiability is (and its also not something thats relative... it either is or it isnt).
ALKIVAR
™
17:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- (1) "Notable to their community" has nothing to do with encyclopdic notability. (2) Non-notability is a valid deletion criterion, otherwise we wouldn't have guidelines like WP:CORP or WP:BIO. Pan Dan 22:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- By analogy with aforementioned guidelines WP:CORP and WP:BIO, which require multiple non-trivial sources featuring the subject, and having actually looked for sources myself and coming up empty, I say delete. (This school even fails the excessively permissive proposed guideline WP:SCHOOL.) Pan Dan 17:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for reasons which are explained at
User:Silensor/Schools (see also
User:JoshuaZ/Schools if interested). Nominator appears to be repeatedly and conveniently ignoring the fact that
WP:SCHOOLS suggests merging, not deletion, in borderline cases.
Silensor
19:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- You misunderstand the nominator's rationale for deletion. It's based on non-notability, not on WP:SCHOOLS. He mentions that the school fails the criteria of WP:SCHOOLS only to bolster the argument for deletion, as those criteria are perceived as being overly inclusive. Pan Dan 21:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- keep please per silensor it is notable and verifiable too Yuckfoo 21:25, 21 October 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.
- 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 delete. -- Mr. Lefty ( talk) 22:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Paul Nowell
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
This is a biography of a minor musician. I prodded it, and the main contributor deprodded it claiming that it meets WP:MUSIC for working on a film score. However, having contributed to the score of one minor film doesn't automatically qualify someone for an article. Anyway, the subject doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines, and he generated no major online mentions. The article strongly appears to be autobiographical- the main contributor is Jazztrbn77, which like stands for "Jazz trombone." -- Wafulz 01:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I'm sure he's a good musician and wish him the best of luck, but it seems to be a vanity page. The writing style is very subjective (seems self-written). Also too long an article, too much info for a subject lacking notability. ( Therin83 01:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC))
- Delete It may not meet WP:MUSIC criteria, it doesn't appear notable, and is vanity. Hello32020 02:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I know him and he is a very active musician in California. It does meet WP:MUSIC criteria. It states "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets ANY ONE of the criteria. One of the criteria is Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show. If that isnt true then they should rewrite the WP:MUSIC criteria — Possible single purpose account: Kimalvara ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- You conveniently ignored the following:
- Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.)-- Wafulz 23:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep looked at WP:Music and agree with kimalvara it says any one of the following, he is on IMDB— Possible
single purpose account:
Happyday1954 (
talk •
contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Again, read what I have in the nomination. It doesn't matter if he's on IMDb- he has do have actually done something notable. -- Wafulz 23:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Looks legit to me ( Raytuflin 1:54, 16 october 2006 — Possible single purpose account: Raytuflin ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Keep ( Duccio505 11:54, 16 october 2006 — Possible single purpose account: Duccio505 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Delete Don't agree that he meets WP:MUSIC - "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable" - playing a trombone doesn't equate to "has performed" unless it is a solo or small ensemble work. Otherwise every member of every orchestra would be notable. QuiteUnusual 16:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, the movie he did the theme for is pretty "independent," if you know what I mean. Doesn't seem notable. Recury 17:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Playing trombone in a piece of music for a minor film doesn't meet such criteria. D e lta Tango | Talk 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Studio musicians usually aren't notable unless they achieve notability on their own (e.g., Lisa Germano). OhNoitsJamie Talk 05:57, 20 October 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.
- 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 keep. The ikiroid ( talk· desk· Advise me) 17:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Apopka High School
Non-notable school, clearly an autobiographical article, written solely to glorify the school, odd formatting that is not in accordance with WP:MoS. Turn it into an encyclopedia article or delete. AmiDaniel ( talk) 04:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Provisional delete, if left in the current state - it's a very one-sided article, and per nom, should be deleted. However, if this article was completely re-written, or even stubbed, I could be swung to a weak keep etc. However, for now, delete. Daniel . Bryant 04:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Provisional delete, also. As it stands, the article is more vanity than substance, ignoring the type of information found in most articles about high schools in favor of a focus on football noteriety. Delete, unless significantly edited.Keep per edits made by WhisperToMe. Consequentially 05:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Delete per nom.TJ Spyke 05:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)- Keep It looks much better now. TJ Spyke 05:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - I trimmed lots of glorifying stuff and I am adding relevant information. WhisperToMe 05:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep after changes made by WhisperToMe. -- Gogo Dodo 05:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Article looks good in its improved state. -- Jayron32 05:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above. MER-C 06:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Let's not do the "schools are not notable" debate again. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 06:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I would still say delete as non-notable, but I do not recommend bringing high school articles to AfD, since it is unlikely to get consensus (for elementary and middle schools, it is less certain) and is more disruptive than keeping articles on schools that are non-notable, in my opinion. -- Kjkolb 07:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above Konman72 07:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep We have near-complete consensus that high school articles will be retained. In its current state, the article demonstrates that it more than meets the minimums needed to justify retention. Referring to "odd formatting that is not in accordance with WP:MoS" is a spectacularly poor reason to delete an article. This is yet another demonstration of the fact that this was an article that needed editing not deletion; AfD is a rather blunt and disruptive instrument to achive changes that could have been done in a far more productive manner. Alansohn 16:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep it. — RJH ( talk) 20:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep22:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as there has been near-complete consensus that high school articles will be retained. it also looks as article has been worked on recently as to some of the other issues. TheRanger 23:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep the edited version works for me.
ALKIVAR
™
03:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as amended Merchbow 15:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Another very large school, ergo notable. -- Necrothesp 18:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above. I am a bit disappointed that the nominator, who is an experienced admin here, did not tag the article for cleanup. Style issues are not a reason for deletion. Silensor 17:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, another non-notable school. —
ptk✰
fgs
20:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Question: I'm sorry, which article were you reading when you made this comment? Silensor 21:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I disagree that there is a "near-complete consensus that high school articles will be retained" and I disagree with similar comments. Those who think that they are not notable have simply refrained from nominating them for deletion and have even declined to recommend that they be deleted when they are nominated by someone else. It would be wonderful if there were more instances of people putting the project ahead of their own feelings. It has not been that long since the heyday of high school AfD nominations and a huge number of articles were kept because no consensus was reached rather than a because there was a consensus to keep the article. Not infrequently, the majority recommended to delete the article but most were saved because of the high threshold needed for deletion. A few even reached consensus to delete, but that was admittedly rare. -- Kjkolb 22:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and allow for organic growth, another notable high school needlessly nominated for deletion. Bahn Mi 05:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep one of our better school articles, and the 'schools are not notable' argument has been lost many times over already. Cynical 11:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. If an article needs cleanup please put a cleanup tag on, dont bring it to afd.... Jcuk 16:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, large high school. bbx 20:55, 20 October 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.
- 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 Delete, per WP:BIO. Naconkantari 04:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Andy Stephenson
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
He is a non-notable journalist. No evidence of any substantial publications. Internet allegations and rumors of both fraud and foul-play are used to smear his reputation and memory. One of the reasons that notability requirements are in place is to give privacy to friends and family of the deceased.
Note to closing Admin This AfD was spammed here per a note from one of the spammers below. -- Tbeatty 15:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Note to closing Admin This AfD was also spammed here. NBGPWS 20:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- who below pointed out the conservative underground spam? dman727 presented the link to DU.--
Tbeatty
20:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Redacted. NBGPWS 21:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Note to people coming from Democratic Underground -- Notability and Verifiability have very specific meanings in the context of Wikipedia, and this is especially important to understand when participating in an AfD. If you want to make a case for saving this article, please familiarize yourself with WP:BIO and WP:RS. New comments go at the bottom to keep the flow of the debate. Also, please make sure you sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). This records the exact account that made the post, as well as the time it was made. Taking the effort to do things the right way increases the chances that other editors will find your arguments compelling.-- Rosicrucian 15:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Note to people coming from Conservative Underground -- see above. VoiceOfReason 17:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator. -- Tbeatty 04:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The only refs on that page that meet WP:RS are the two obituary links. -- Aaron 04:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Morton devonshire 04:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Notability is debatable (refactored personal attack). I attempted to correct the factual inaccuracies some time back, and was never quite successful against anonymous reverters. See this diff of something I removed last night. (refactored personal attack) - Crockspot 04:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:BIO.-- MONGO 05:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Wow, a non-notable subject that suffers from factual issues. Em-jay-es 05:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Brimba 05:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep a google search turns up some nationally notable sources: several Seattle Weekly articles, as well as the subject of an HBO documentary . He's notable. However, someone needs to block the article from anon edits and remove all NPOV problems. It would appear that he is a controverial subject, but that is no reason for deletion. He has been noted in several national sources, and so is notable and verifiable. The article just needs a MAJOR clean-up and protection. -- Jayron32 05:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- STRONG Keep - His life, career and death are all notable. NBGPWS 07:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Karag 07:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Karag ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- STRONG Keep - This article needs a rewrite, not a deletion. His candidacy for Sec. of State in Washington and the fact that national news media reported on him is reason enough to keep the page, regardless of what you may think of him. ChildOfTheMoon83 07:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)*
- Strong Delete Not notable. He's only notable in the minds of some extremist attempting to exploit his death. I happened across this myself while looking at an extremist web site and it seems they are looking to start a sockpuppet compaign to spam keeps. Additionally his Secretary of State "candidacy" failed to garner any signicant votes [11] Dman727 08:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- StrongKeep Andy's life was notable and his death (refactored personal attack) Ken Burch 00:35, 16 October 2006.— Possible single purpose account: Ken Burch ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- CommentActually, user made a contribution to a different article before this AFD was opened, so incorrect to claim it could be a "single purpose account" Edison 20:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackbird71 ( talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: Blackbird71 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- StrongKeep Andy Stephenson's case was an online cause celebre of considerable note mainly because he was targetted and smeared by right wing extremists as he lay dying in hospital. To allow these same degenerates to now delete the memory of his death would be a tragedy. - alastair thomspon (co-editor http://scoop.co.nz) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.96.48 ( talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 203.97.96.48 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Conditional Keep: this article needs to be rewritten by a non-interested party and locked to prevent tampering. ( Therin83 08:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC))
- StrongKeep Andy Stephenson was a huge help to prove election vote tampering by the Black boxes. ([User: Erin Blair]]) 2:14 PM, October 16, 2006. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.204.188.208 ( talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 209.204.188.208 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Delete per nom, Aaron. Also, Crockspot's diff suggests article will be a vandal magnet. CWC (talk) 11:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Multiple verifiable sources per Jayron32. Page can be semi-protected if vandalism is a concern. Catchpole 11:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- emphatically, categorically, a STRONGKEEP This is a matter of preserving a historical record of a debate-- whether Andy will ultimately be proved correct or not is irrelevant to the argument. This isn't about whether Andy was right-- the thing is, eventually Andy became a story in his own right. That's why we have to preserve this. Period. (iandb1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.2.39 ( talk • contribs)
- Comment Delete comments have been removed here, here by User:Blackbird71 who's only contributions are to this article, reverted to correct state by User:Dman727. Khukri ( talk . contribs) 11:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep per Jayron32. - Serpent-A 11:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete as per Crockspot. Too much conspiracy theory and POV to make this article salvageable, and no sign of that changing. I feel this is one article where with the best intentions of any editor, it will descend in to unproven allegations. Khukri ( talk . contribs) 12:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The anticipation that a controversial article will have POV edits is not grounds for deletion. Editors will doubtless have it on their watch list and NPOV statements can be negotiated in the Talk page, per the best practices of Wikipedia. Edison 19:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and per Crockspot, these anon comments are quite annoying as well. Perhaps if its ever proven that "conservatives" ... killed him then I will change my vote. --
Nuclear
Zer0
12:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Why of course we killed him, right after we caused global warming and before we plotted to steal the 2006 elections.-- WinOne4TheGipper 17:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above, I might change my vote to keep but rewrite if notability can be established (how close was the secretary of state election, did he generate a lot of mainstream media coverage, etc) GabrielF 13:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Ck4829 14:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:BIO, and all the sockpuppet/SPA votes aren't helping. NawlinWiki 14:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, not seeing the notability. Keeping the article to "honor his memory and work" is not a valid reason to keep. The march of the meatpuppets on this article is shameful and Wikipedia does not put articles up to "honor" people, no matter how noble their causes.-- Rosicrucian 14:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Andy's work, to have everyone the right to vote and to keep fraud from happening should be honored. Keep the page for his memory. -- sakabatou19— Possible single purpose account: sakabatou19 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- STRONG KEEP Andy's work should be respected. This page is an honor to him. -- Haruka3_2000— Possible single purpose account: Haruka3_2000 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Strong keep Andy made a strong contribution with his work (refactor personal attack) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.115.31.179 ( talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 83.115.31.179 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- STRONG KEEP - I don't understand why it needs to be deleted. It should remain up in honor and respect for his hard work. It's also a memorial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.16.234 ( talk • contribs)
- STRONG KEEP--Mr. Stephenson's work played a large part in preserving democracy. I can't understand why anyone would want to delete, as Andy worked for all of us----His life revolved around making sure ALL our votes are counted.---Booli—The preceding unsigned comment was added by BOOLI ( talk • contribs) 14:59, 16 October 2006. — Possible single purpose account: BOOLI ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
Arbitrary Page Break 1
- STRONG KEEP - Absolutely notable. Is subject of a documentary film now in production by Michael Moore, Numerous press mentions while he was alive, radio and television interviews while he was alive including CNN and MSNBC. Was very active in the e-voting seminar circuit. And the circumstances of his death spawned three web sites, several press articles, and much radio discussion. (refactored personal attack) BenBurch 15:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Ben you are so hypocritical, remember when you went on your own little leftist purge on trying to delete the conservative underground page and the protest warrior page, leftist hypocrisy is truly disgusting—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.237.72.55 ( talk • contribs) 18:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC).
- Comment Which documentary? Moore's IMDB page only lists three films in production right now, and none of them seem to mention Andy Stephenson. The "Hacking Democracy" HBO film does not seem to be associated with Michael Moore.-- Rosicrucian 15:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Not listed there. I have been cooperating with his production team on the project I refer to, which is on the subject the American medical services delivery system. BenBurch 16:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- So, Ben, you have also claimed that Conservative Underground will become notable when Sicko comes out, (also related to the Stephenson controversy). If you are using future mention in an upcoming film to prove notablility here, to be consistent, you would also have to apply the same standard to the Conservative Underground article, which at the time of the AfD, you did not. I believed you even mentioned at that time that CU would eventually become notable because of this film, and could then have an article on Wiki. So by your own previous arguments, this article should be recreated when and if Sicko makes him notable. Crockspot 20:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- So Stephenson is mentioned in Sicko? If so, do you have a reliable source that can be used to verify that? It can't really be included in the article on anecdotal evidence. Beyond that, if Sicko is the film you are referring to, Stephenson does not seem to be the primary focus as you implied.-- Rosicrucian 16:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Nope, just my say-so. You can decide if you want to be embarrassed by having removed an article for a notable (but politically embarrassing for right wingers) individual who becomes even more notable upon the release of this film or not. Like all Michael Moore films, the documentary jumps from story to story to build a theme. Andy is one of those stories. People want to bury this story, but it isn't gonna happen. BenBurch 16:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Your "say-so," like anyone else's (yes, even mine), is not good enough, Ben. Jinxmchue 17:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Let's wait for the documentary then. This is an encyclopedia. We would rather be right than early and that includes whether or not an article should be kept. -- Tbeatty 17:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Seems be newsworthy and blogworthy, but doesn't meet encyclopedic level of notability. Deli nk 15:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Especially per Jayron32, and why again was this nominated? That information took moments to find... · XP · 15:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Andy who?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.214.154.104 ( talk • contribs)
- 135.214.154.104 appears to be an open proxy.
BenBurch
17:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- A whois lookup shows this is registered to Cingular Wireless as part of their dynamic range. Thus, while it is an anonymous IP and part of a dynamic range, I see no evidence it's an open proxy.-- Rosicrucian 18:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- 135.214.154.104 appears to be an open proxy.
BenBurch
17:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep Needs clean up and better sourcing ("a discussion forum post"? twice???). Jinxmchue 17:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- STRONG KEEP per BenBurch. Attempting to delete this article about a true American hero is an obvious Stalinist plot by neocons to whitewash Wikipedia of all reference to Republican vile crimes against humanity. PCock 17:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)— PCock ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment Those making "Stalinist" remarks would do well to assume good faith about their fellow editors and avoid personal attacks.-- Rosicrucian 17:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- We can assume good faith even in the face of evidence to the contrary, I suppose. Politically correct discussion is important, after all, while we are making an unperson out of somebody inconvenient. BenBurch 17:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- The reason for these rules is that they further civil discourse on Wikipedia, and ensure that people of differing PoVs can establish consensus. Casting aspersions about motives and making this into an emotional argument only raises the wikistress of all involved.-- Rosicrucian 17:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- If I were you I would be taking this time to show notability, remove the unprovable conspiracy theories and add reliable sources. before this AfD reaches consensus (if it does). Not to be making assupmtions about the politcal beliefs of those who have voted on this article, in good faith I might add, and who have no interest in your war of words. Like on most AfD's I'm willing to be swayed, but slandering those who disagree with your viewpoint as Stalinists, knocks your chances. regards Khukri ( talk . contribs) 17:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment No assumptions are being made - they're facts. Several the editors involved are part of what some consider to be a 'Conservative Hit Squad' here on Wiki. Crockspot, who is in constant contact with Tbeatty, nominated another researcher on voter fraud, Bev Harris, for speedy deletion on the same day. Two voter fraud investigators being nominated for deletion on the same day, by two proven activist conservative editors? [12] [13] NBGPWS 20:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I recommend that the vote of any editor with less than 500 total edits to en.wikipedia be ignored. :o -
Crockspot
17:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- actually, the standard for sockpuppets is 50 edits which would apply to almost all of the SPA accounts above.—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Tbeatty (
talk •
contribs)
17:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC).
- I know, I just dropped an extra 0 in there for the benefit of BenBurch. He has enjoyed putting high edit count bars on his past afd's, and I rather enjoy watching the steam come out of his ears. - Crockspot 17:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm going to second this recommendation. It is quite obvious that there is now an influx of sockpuppet "votes" (most likely thanks to a post on the Democrat Underground - remember, DUers, this is not an actual vote where the majority wins) with ridiculous rants about "obvious Stalinist plot[s] by neocons to whitewash Wikipedia of all reference to Republican vile crimes against humanity."
Jinxmchue
18:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I have it on good authority that this AfD is going to be closed by a Diebold electronic voting machine! ZOMG!!!!111!1! -- Aaron 19:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- An editor who makes a good argument based firmly upon our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines will be counted, however new xe is. Equally, an editor whose argument is that "we must have a memorial" (contrary to our Wikipedia articles are not memorials policy) or whose argument is wholly based upon personal testimony about future events (contrary to our verifiability and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball policies) will not count, however many edits xe has. Uncle G 19:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- actually, the standard for sockpuppets is 50 edits which would apply to almost all of the SPA accounts above.—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Tbeatty (
talk •
contribs)
17:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC).
- Keep, properly cited article that establishes weak notability Valoem talk 18:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Arbitrary Page Break 2
- Super Duper Strong Keep Great american heroes like Andy should be memorialized into stone, rather than washed down the memory hole of the Bush dictatorship. You people pushing for delete should be ashamed of yourselves. How can you sleep at night? It also possible that the people recommending delete were also part of fringe right that contributed to Andys death by denying him the funds for surgery, and now they wish to erase that stain on their soul.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.102.254.33 ( talk • contribs) 19:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC).
- I sleep very well on my Rovomatic Adjustable Bushbot Bed, given to me personally by KKKarl in payment for killing Andy. It's super duper comfy. - Crockspot 20:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Damn. Someone went and used the Super Duper on us. I guess the debate is over. Dman727 20:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. Wildthing61476 19:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The blogs are not strong sources for notability, but the article from the Seattle newspaper establishes most of the disputed statements about his work on showing hackability of electronic voting systems, and the circumstances of the interference with fundraising to pay for his final medical expenses. There is also a reference from a current HBO movie in which his contribution is documented. Notability rather than need for a memorial is a good basis for keeping the article. Edison 19:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete After sifting through this AFD and looking at references here and in the article, it's clear that the subject of this article has been the subject of some national media attention. But this does not automatically bestow the level of notability necessarily for inclusion in an encyclopedia. I don't see the media attention as signficant, or the newstory as much more than transitory. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 20:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- *STRONG KEEP* Andy is clearly notable as any thinking person would know. Attempts to delete this fine man are evidence of the hand of Rove at work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.159.148.121 ( talk • contribs)
- Comment if you cannot explain why Andy Stephenson is notable, or reference your vote to another editor who you agree with, then no he is not "clearly notable" for the purposes of this AfD.-- Rosicrucian 20:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep per Jayron32. The HBO movie is a good enough claim of notability for me. However, this needs cleanup and better sources, blogs and web forums aren't usually good sources. BryanG (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Just out of curiosity, would it matter to you if he was the subject of the movie, or just got a passing mention in it? It might matter to me and change my vote from delete to keep, if he was the subject of the movie; but that doesn't seem to be the case based on the reference in the article. Deli nk 20:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Probably not, the question of how much he's in the movie (which doesn't come out until next month, I believe) is why my !vote was weak in the first place.
BryanG
(talk)
21:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- I would not. Personally I've been mentioned in a few newspaper articles and even was referenced in a documentary several years ago. However Im far from noteable. I don't believe that anecdotal references in media are equivalant to being noteworthy. Dman727 21:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Probably not, the question of how much he's in the movie (which doesn't come out until next month, I believe) is why my !vote was weak in the first place.
BryanG
(talk)
21:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- comment I still support a keep for this article, but the whitewash being attempted here is NOT helping the cause. Merely yelling that he is worthy is NOT the way to get the article kept. Even if hundreds of people came down on the side of this subject's sainthood, it does NOT make the subject worthy. CITE SOURCES. NATIONAL MEDIA. RESPECTED THIRD PARTY INFO. That sort of thing. Now I did my part finding stuff on a guy I frankly couldn't give two s&!#$ about. If all you people are SO hell bent on getting the article kept, do the research, cite respected sources, rewrite the article, and make it up to standard. Otherwise, just let it go. All you are going to do is cause the admins here to delete and protect the article from ever being recreated, which would not serve your purposes. Also, WikiPedia is built on community concensus. Become an active part of the community if you want your opinions to be recognized. Merely getting 100 random anonymous people to spam this AfD with requests to keep will NOT make it happen. -- Jayron32 20:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I ask that the nominator, Tbeatty, document his assertion. "One of the reasons that notability requirements are in place is to give privacy to friends and family of the deceased." If true, hundreds of articles on people with backgrounds as varied as Polly Klaas and Jerry Garcia may need deletion as mentioning their untimely and tragic deaths 'violates their family's privacy rights'. NBGPWS 21:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment We seem to have been visited by some sock puppets posting lampoons of how they think a DUer would respond to this topic... Not sure if it is an attempt at humor or an attempt to discredit those who support KEEP. BenBurch 21:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- No, they are dead on as to how DUers are responding to this topic. All one needs to do for proof of this is read the Democrat Underground thread [14] that brought you all here. Jinxmchue 21:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- I was brought here by my watchlist...
BenBurch
22:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Alright. More coincidence, I guess. Jinxmchue
- That's kind of funny. I thought the same thing, except that I thought you were one of the lampooners with your original Stalinist comment. [15] :) -- Ed ( Edgar181) 23:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I ask an investigation be started into the strange 'coincidence' of two of the best-known voter fraud investigators being nominated for deletion on the same day, by two well-known conservative activist Wiki editors, three weeks before national elections where voting fraud is a major concern! [16] [17] NBGPWS 21:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- If you have a dispute, that is a matter for dispute resolution rather than requesting an investigation while in the middle of an AfD.-- Rosicrucian 21:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- I think your time would be better spent researching and improving these articles to keep them on Wiki than to worrying about some imagined "Vast-Ring Wing Conspiracy" designed to cover up imagined voter fraud. Jinxmchue 21:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Nothing 'imagined' about this orchestrated effort to purge info by activist Conservative editors:
- "Someone removed your prod from the Andy Stephenson article. You'll have to do an AfD. Crockspot 04:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC):Done. -- Tbeatty 04:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC) Andy Stephenson deletion discussion is -- Tbeatty 04:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC) Check out the diff I posted on the AfD for a good snort. Crockspot 05:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)"
-
NBGPWS
23:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- So what exactly is the conspiracy? I "prod"ed the article prior to AfD. (if you don't know what "prod" is, go find it). He let me know that the "prod" failed. AfD is the next step. --
Tbeatty
23:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Sure - it's just sheer coincidence that two MAJOR reseachers into voting fraud got nominated for deletion for non-notability by you two on the SAME DAY. Out of the THOUSANDS of questionable articles, you chose those two to nominate for deletion. No agenda there!
[18]
[19]
NBGPWS
00:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm... let's think how else we could explain this while still assuming good faith... maybe, just maybe, those two people happen to read articles about political figures and voting because of their interest in the subject, and noticed that these two articles merited afd'ing? -- tjstrf 01:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Smearing editors and accusing them of having an agenda is not what AfD is for. Again, if you wish to pursue this, follow the steps of dispute resolution.-- Rosicrucian 01:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oh Cool. I didn't know Bev Harris was up for AfD. But since the proposals in the history were speedy and prod (both non-voting deletion processes) I will have to wait for the full-blown AfD. Thanks for the heads-up though so I can add Bev Harris to my watchlist. -- Tbeatty 07:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Sure - it's just sheer coincidence that two MAJOR reseachers into voting fraud got nominated for deletion for non-notability by you two on the SAME DAY. Out of the THOUSANDS of questionable articles, you chose those two to nominate for deletion. No agenda there!
[18]
[19]
NBGPWS
00:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- See, that's one thing about having an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. People's biases can and do affect it. Have you been a paragon of neutrality? I certainly doubt it. Even I have had times where I have not been entirely neutral about topics. And that's where another thing about having an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit comes in. Other people can have a say in it and balance out things. Compromise is important here. As far as your accusations go, I would suggest you drop them as they are unprovable and inflammatory. They will result in nothing but back and forth sniping and bad feelings. Jayron32 and others have improved the article considerably since it was nominated for deletion. Why didn't you do anything to improve it? That would've been considerably more helpful to your cause than making these ridiculous accusations. Jinxmchue 14:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- So what exactly is the conspiracy? I "prod"ed the article prior to AfD. (if you don't know what "prod" is, go find it). He let me know that the "prod" failed. AfD is the next step. --
Tbeatty
23:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- First, allow me to express how delighted and honored I am to be referred to as a "well-known conservative activist Wiki editor". My father is smiling in Heaven. Second, I inserted a {{prod-bio}} into Bev Harris mainly because I knew (refactored personal attack) , but it certainly helped that the article did not assert Ms. Harris' notability, and was very nearly unsourced. I didn't discuss it or coordinate it with anyone else. The person who removed my tag has done some improvement, so in the end, it was a positive move. Third, I welcome any investigation. I am protected by Teh Hand of Rove, and your Fitz are belong to us. - Crockspot 03:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- comment the existance of sockpuppets or strawmen in support of or opposed to this article has NO BEARING on its inherent notability. The identity or political leanings of people involved in either the nomination or the debate have NO BEARING on the the subjects notability. Does the subject show up in the national press/media? Is the subject notable for the things they show up for? If yes, the subject should stay; and probably be protected from anon edits given the level of controversy. If no, the subject should be deleted, and also be protected from recreation. Either way, the personalities of the editors involved in these discussion should have NO BEARING on the results of said discussions. -- Jayron32 21:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It appears that there are adquate references which are verifiable and reliable to establish Stephenson's notability for his work regarding the weaknesses of "black box" voting and his running for secretary of state of Washington. Kitty Hammond 22:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Kitty Hammond ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
Arbitrary Page Break 3
- Merge, against inclusion in Wikipedia He may merit mention in a relavent article on the subject of electronic voting fraud. The individual himself is not notable. (note to closing admin: this !vote has a very specific title because I wish it to be treated in a specific manner during the closing. In other words, this merge should not be counted as a psuedo-keep.) -- tjstrf 22:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The most notable thing about him is the conspiracy theory, which is completely unverifiable. Rumors, conspiracy and inuendo do not belong in an encyclopedia.
Resolute
23:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Really? MORE than half of the Vince Foster article is about the kooky right wing barking moonbat conspiracy theories that Clinton had Foster killed! NBGPWS 00:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Then go edit the Vince Foster article. If you feel that another article needs work, then by all means take it on! However other article have nothing to do with this particle article. Dman727 01:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Unlike this article's theories about Stephenson's death, the theories about Foster's death are at least well-sourced. Additionally, talk of Foster's death was widespread at the time. The theories about Stephenson's death are limited to far-left forums like DU. Jinxmchue 14:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- When Stephenson gets two independant counsels to investigate his death, I will be the first to vote Keep. Even if there is no conspiracy. -- Tbeatty 01:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable, despite the inadequacies of the article. -- TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 23:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I did some minor searching on Stephensons candidacy for Secretary of State. It appears to be unnoteworthy and Stephenson did not garner any signifant percentage of vote. [20] 12.159.148.121
- Given that I do not find his duties at BBV noteworthy, nor his candidacy, I've revised my opinion to Strong Delete
Dman727
01:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. The website you are linking to contains General Election results, not Primary. Keep in mind Stephenson ran as a Democrat, and dropped out on June 26, 2004 (presumably around the time of the primaries), although I don't know if that was before or after the Primary, or what percentage of the vote he earned.
I stand by my "Strong Keep", but I believe now more than ever the article badly needs a NPOV, as well as some locks to dissuade right and left-wingers (and their sockpuppets) from vandalizing it. It's also worth mentioning that a friend and supporter of his, William Rivers Pitt, publicly called into question the operation and circumstances of his death. Stephenson's SOS candidacy, the HBO documentary and the presence of his name and activism in notable news sources convinces me that this should still be kept. But some drastic measures need to be in place so that this page (and perhaps other political pages as well) is protected from extremist vandals, whether they frequent DU, FR or any other blog or message board. ChildOfTheMoon83 03:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
As a journalist, I thought the situation that Stephenson was experiencing with regard to those who hassled him on his deathbed was curious enough to devote an entire article on it See http://www.coastalpost.com/05/06/01.html I personally spoke with Peter Angelos and he confirmed that he used his influence to help make Stephenson's cutting edge pancreas operation at Johns Hopkins Med Center a reality. I think that Andy Stephenson was and will always be one of the voices for truth, at a time when the mainstream media would not know truth if it came up and bit them on their butt. If Vince Foster has a wikipedia entry, and he is only mourned at this point by his family, then Andy Stephenson should have an entry - he is mourned by his family of thousands of voting activists across the country. When I originall y posted the story at my newspaper, I truly believed that the right wing cabal had influenced PayPal to withhold the needed funds. Since then I have learned that that version of PayPal did that to many of its subscribers - they withheld monies probably just to have the interest on the funds. EBay has since acquired PayPal and it now operates in a more legitimate manner. Currently Stephenson will be honored with mention in a HBO documentary on the election process in the day of electronic machinery. He is also someone that Dorothy Faddiman focuses on in her documentary "Stealing America". The Coastal Post comes out once a month in hard copy that is sent to 18,000 subscribers in Marin County, California. It also is on the web. I own all copy that I write, once it is out and on the newstand. My opinion is to StrongKeep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.218.153.212 ( talk • contribs) . — Possible single purpose account: 12.218.153.212 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- comment I don't expect the previous contributor to return, since he is not a regular editor, and is only here to make this singular plea. I will still make these comments for anyone who cares to read them since they bear clarification over why the above arguement, while obviously heart felt does NOT MAKE A STRONG KEEP CASE. Comparing the Vince Foster article to this one does NOT do the keep side justice. Articles are not kept on the merits of the relative goodness of the subject, ONLY on the relative notability and verifiability of the information in the article. Idi Amin is not missed by many people, while my Grandmother was really one of the nicest people I have ever met. No one would claim that my grandmother needs an article more than does Idi Amin. Simply argueing that because Foster was not well liked, while Andy Stephenson was a true patriot does NOT have any bearing on whether one should be kept and the other deleted. A quick perusal of the Vince Foster article indicates that it is HEAVILY referenced to NATIONAL MEDIA sources. Now, if you will note, I have voted and am still voting keep. I may even (if I have the time) try to improve the article. But to all of you people who claim to know and care about Andy Stephenson (and honestly, I could give a flying f^(& about him) if you want to keep the article, FIND REFERNCES and IMPROVE THE ARTICLE so it will meet the already well-established standards. You could do no better than to look at the Vince Foster article and seeing how it is done there, since that is an EXCELLENTLY SOURCED article. -- Jayron32 03:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- comment A quick perusal of the article you referenced at length should have provided you adequate evidence that the author, Carol Sterritt, is a she, not a he as you wrote. (unless you happen to know this particular Carol to be a man like Carol O'Connor) NBGPWS 04:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- reply Fine, its written by a she. I never assigned a gender to the author. I DID assign a gender to Mr. Foster, who I believe still qualifies as a he. -- Jayron32 04:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Coincidentally, a different anon editor invoked the Foster article on my talk page today. I, too, pointed out the vast divide in the quality of the sourcing between the articles. Part of the problem is that the controversy surrounding Andy was largely played out on blogs, which are, at best, sometimes allowed as primary sources only. The few secondary sources (I'm thinking of the Ferrari article), are not accurate, in my opinion, and based upon posts of hers that I read at the time. How do you reliably source such a thing? I don't think you can. Crockspot 04:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Fixed the article Well, I did my best. Check out the article now. For extensive explanation of my fixes,. please see the talk page where I explain my fixes and rationale. It should be up to WikiPedia standards from the WP:MOS to a point. Its still really stubby, but the article should have enough verifiable references to allow it to be kept, as long as the DU people don't ruin it by mucking the article up again (if they really are his supporters, why not play by the rules and try to get the article kept???) -- Jayron32 04:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith and don't bite the newbies. "only here to make this singular plea." is assuming good faith only if a new editor stated that was his intention. I expect a number of Wikipedia editors were drawn here by a desire to edit one article and went on to edit thousands, just as voters are lured to register to vote by one wedge issue but go on voting.
Edison
06:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- You are right. I make an unqualified apology. I do hope that all of these people who commented do stay and learn to become good WikiPedia editors. It would be unfortunate if their only exposure to WikiPedia editing is through this highly controversial topic. They all seem to have something to add to the topic, and I only wish they would do so in a way that was more constructive and actually improved the article in question, or added to this debate in a meaningful way. However, I do admit that the comment you note was in bad taste on my part, and I retract it. -- Jayron32 06:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Not notable - it is now well sourced and the pure fiction has been removed. But he is still not a notable person. He isn't extensively published (notability for a journalist) and he doesn't have multiple mainstream media coverage (notability for an activist). Tbeatty 04:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- reply Fair enough. The HBO documentary and Seattle Weekly citations do provide the mainstream portion. Multiple is weak, I will admit (OK, its only 2). But I have given the articles supporters a head start. Surely all those people who know and love the subject so much have references at the ready (CNN, NYTimes, Newsweek, or even widely read local papers) and can continue the work I have done. If not, though I still vote keep, it may be beyond my help at this point. -- Jayron32 05:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- In the article I see 3 articles in West Coast local papers, 1 each in the New York Times, the Washington Post and The Guardian (London), one story on Fox News plus an HBO movie. Several of these mention his national campaigning for voter verified paper trails and his Secretary of State candidacy. Pretty impressive notability compared to many WP bio articles. Edison 07:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- There are other articles on electronic voting. It seems a mention in those would be adequate and deserving. Maybe Black Box Voting?. -- Tbeatty 05:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment to closing admin: When considering Tbeatty comments, please note their contribution history. POV/advocacy warrior for right wing American political activism. · XP · 08:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment to closing admin:I wholeheartedly concur with the above comments by XP. A look at Tbeatty's contributions on Wiki will find his activity almost exclusively limited to highly charged political topics. NBGPWS 08:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment to closing admin: True or not, that has nothing to do with the arguments he presents here and should not discolour your evaluation of the debate. -- tjstrf 09:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- You are more than welcome to file an RfC or ArbCom if you feel that strongly about it. You may also take your complaints to my talk page or any of the admin noticeboards if you wish. But commenting here is not appropriate and I have warned you on your talk page to AGF. -- Tbeatty 09:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- You should hit them both with {{ npa3}} or {{ npa4}} tags. Such statements are direct and blatant violations of WP:NPA (which is policy, not a suggestion.) -- Aaron 16:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Please quit refactoring people's comments that aren't personal attacks. That could be viewed as censorship, or worse. Don't you support 'freedom of speech'? NBGPWS 09:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Arbitrary Page Break 4
- comment This is one of the WORST bad faith nominations I've ever seen. HBO's 'Hacking Democracy', which prominently features Andy Stephenson debuts Nov 2. [21] That ALONE established notability. Also, the nominator's justification is fallicious on two counts, and should be ruled as such. Andy was not primarily known as 'journalist' as the nominator claimed, but as an activist. The nominator has also failed to defend his claim that "notability requirements are in place is to give privacy to friends and family of the deceased." If that were true NO individual who died prematurely and/or tragically would have the circumstances of their death discussed. No info surrounding the deaths of Curt Cobain, Polly Klaas, Jerry Garcia or HUNDREDS of other persons could be discussed if Wiki were to follow this anomalous and aberrant line of reasoning. NBGPWS 06:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment He is non-notable. You cite the HBO synopsis of the Bev Harris HBO program. Stephenson is mentioned once alongside the non-notable Susan Bernecker, Kathleen Wynne (Cleveland), Hugh Thompson (Security Innovations), Ion Sancho and Harri Hursti. All of whom are MORE notable than Stephenson and also lack the notability to be in Wikipedia (all red lines at the time of this post). Second, the logic you've applied is backward. The Notability Standard, which Stephenson fails, is in place to protect non-notable people from the public spotlight. All the persons you mentioned are Notable. Stephenson is not. And third, to be notable as a journalist one must have received multiple awards for journalism. To be notable in general, he needs multiple writeups in major publications for multiple events. He does not have that. He is in the paper for one thing: Black Box Voting. Most of the articles (i.e. the Guardian) are opinion pieces. The hard news items are almost exclusively local writeups about the single topic of black box voting. His obit seems excusively local. That does not make him notable enough for Wikipedia inclusion. Black Box Voting has an article in Wikipedia and anything relevant about Stephenson can be included there. Please stop casting aspersions on the motivation for the AfD. It is a form of personal attack. -- Tbeatty 07:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- USER
Tbeatty When are you going to defend, or retract your assertion that: "notability requirements are in place is to give privacy to friends and family of the deceased."?
NBGPWS
08:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- I already have but you can see Jimbo's response to a similiar question. In that case, the hubsand of a non-notable person asked that her bio be deleted. A user made a similiar assertion to what you are making. -- Tbeatty 09:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- USER
Tbeatty When are you going to defend, or retract your assertion that: "notability requirements are in place is to give privacy to friends and family of the deceased."?
NBGPWS
08:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
So now YOU are speaking on behalf of Andy's family and are claiming that they don't want his death discussed - or you just PRESUME this by extrapolating from the TOTALLY different situation involving the staffer of Joe Scarborough who was found dead, and her surving husband's express wishes that her death not be discussed? Which is it? NBGPWS 09:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- I've never claimed any such thing nor is your false choice ever been supported. I said One of the reasons that notability requirements are in place is to give privacy to friends and family of the deceased. That's it. It's a simple truth. Stephenson is non-notable. Being a non-notable person affords him and his family a level of privacy from scurilous charges about fraud and fake deaths being repeated on Wikipedia. Further, the notability requirements of Wikipedia should keep him completely anonymous except for perhaps a passing reference in Black Box Voting.-- Tbeatty 09:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- "To be notable in general, he needs multiple writeups in major publications for multiple events." Incorrect, and misleading. If this was the case, we would have no article on
John Mark Karr or other "one hit media wonders". Every write up was due to one thing: his made up confession. You are mistaken. ·
XP ·
08:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- No, I don't think so. I doubt John Mark Karr will survive AfD once the newsiness dies down. Unless he is charged or convicted of a crime, he is non-notable and he will not be in Wikipedia for long. But of course, this AfD is about the non-notableness of Stephenson, not Karr. -- Tbeatty 08:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- "To be notable in general, he needs multiple writeups in major publications for multiple events." Incorrect, and misleading. If this was the case, we would have no article on
John Mark Karr or other "one hit media wonders". Every write up was due to one thing: his made up confession. You are mistaken. ·
XP ·
08:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comments:
- We would, of course, merge useful info (mostly refs) into Black Box Voting.
- Barring some investigative reporting by a reliable journalist, Wikipedia's ban on original research means all we can say about the poor guy's death is "some people claimed X but other people claimed Y", which will satisfy very few people.
Comment to Tbeatty: Please show me where in WP:Notability People you find evidence of policy supporting your claim: "One of the reasons that notability requirements are in place is to give privacy to friends and family of the deceased." Wikipedia:Notability people NBGPWS 13:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment to NBGPWS This is in WP:NOT however: Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered.. Wildthing61476 13:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Multiple MSM mentions, plus 19,500 Ghits for "Andy Stephenson" + voting, plus HBO documentary = Notability. NBGPWS 14:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment This is an AfD. This is about whether this article is encyclopedic and notable by Wikipedia's standards. There is no standard by which we can judge whether this is a "good faith" or "bad faith" nomination, nor should we, because Wikipedia requests that we
assume good faith and
avoid personal attacks. I'm noticing a distinct lack of
civility in this discussion, and the closing admin will likely note that as well. This is not about Tbeatty, Crockspot, or anyone else and their political affiliations. That is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and if you feel they are conducting a purge of articles based off of their PoV, this is not the place to address that. Those involved have repeatedly been admonished to take their dispute through the
standard resolution process and have persisted in carrying on said dispute on this AfD's page. I just want to state to all involved that you need to take this to talkpages, RfC, ArbCom, or really anywhere but here. If this continues here I will post a request to the
Administrators' Noticeboard to end it the hard way.--
Rosicrucian
15:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Second I would like to reiterate Rosicrusians point. The notability of the subject is INDEPENDANT of the political activism, political positions, rudeness, bad faith, or any other fact about any editor here or anywhere else. Either he is notable or he is not. Provide evidence to support your view, and leave it at that. Opinion or evidence of perceived wrongdoing by another editor does NOT have ANY bearing on the article at hand or this AfD and should be left to other venues at WikiPedia, such as talk pages or RfCs. Such discussions should not be carried on here. -- Jayron32 18:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, the article doesn't demonstrate a level of notability. The material the person has written may be relevant in some articles, and the person may be worth mentioning in short somewhere, but I don't believe the subject warrants an article of its own.
First of all, this deletion debate's journey started with the wrong foot - every time someone posts "hey, everybody, vote for/against deletion" in some forum, the whole debate gets rickety. Consider this from my point of view: I'm uncaffeinated enough to not be able to read the above discussions; AfD is supposed to be a simple place to follow. A pre-emptive hug of consolation to whoever admin has to close this mess!
That said, I need to evaluate the current state of the article: Okay, so here we have a journalist... who has done some mudslinging at voting machines... and failed to get elected to an office... and died. In my opinion, that doesn't yet pass the "more important than average professor" gut feeling, even if you have media mentions and like. There's lots of journalists in this world, there's lots of prominent electronic voting critics. There's a whole bunch of also-ran election candidates, who have consistently been deemed nonnotable (for that merit alone, barring other claims of fame) in Wikipedia. Lacking these, this is more of a merge material or something completely forgettable. -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 15:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)- For the clarity, the "prof test" is at WP:PROF. My point is that if there were similar test for journalists, this person wouldn't pass it. -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 15:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Not sure what all the fuss is about here. The article is abundantly sourced and the ample sources substantiate sufficient notability. Gamaliel 16:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Per WP:BIO, "the person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." I'm not a fan of the political ideals that Stephenson promoted, and I find Democratic Underground to be a rich source of unintended humor, but what I like least of all is when people can't resist dragging politics into Wikipedia. Stephenson plainly meets WP:BIO, the good faith of many of the voters here both pro- and con- is plainly questionable, this article should never have been nominated for deletion, and it should be kept. VoiceOfReason 17:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Where has he been the primary subject? -- Tbeatty 17:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Here, for one. Look, if you'll check my history you'll find that I've started more than my share of AfDs, and though you won't see it in my history I've been responsible for quite a few speedy deletions and successful prods. I don't like seeing garbage cluttering the encyclopedia. I'm all for uncontroversial deletions. But when there's any doubt, as there certainly is here, I have a very strong bias in favor of keep; it doesn't really hurt anything to leave the article in place and I am certain that a number of people, learning about Stephenson from other sources, have visited Wikipedia to get more information on him. The activities of Stephenson during his life and the major Internet controversy surrounding his last days are more than sufficient to make him notable. Yeah, his politics were kind of silly and his "research" into voting methods highly questionable, but politics does not belong here. I reiterate my opinion that this article should clearly be kept. VoiceOfReason 18:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Additional comment The article may very well fail WP:NPOV, but the remedy for that is rewrite, not deletion. VoiceOfReason 18:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- I actually agree with you about the politics, that's why I put this up for deletion. There is no reason to bring the internet controversy to wikipedia and that is what was happening. Black Box Voting is notable and he certainly is a part of that. But a human interest writeup in Seattle Weekly is hardly noteworthy as meeting the inclusion criteria for WP and that's my problem with this entry. As you have seen from the multiple SPA writeups, this article has become a memorial to an otherwise non-notable person. I listed the six or so other people on the upcoming HBO show that are also non-notable (as is the show) but the topic IS notable and that is where they deserve mention. One article: Black Box Voting -- Tbeatty 18:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment He spent years travelling around the country as an activist and specialist or expert on security flaws of black box voting. He was written up and quoted in numerous newspaper of international circulation. He testified at numerous hearings on machine certification. The campaign against him by right-wing blogs was documented in newspapers. This is all besides many thousands of internet mentions in sites concerned with verified voting. Edison 18:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- reply Please provide citations to his testimony. If he testified, a record exists. Please find references to say so. Also, if the campaign to smear him was mentioned in newspapers, please cite those papers. Also, see my additional comments below -- Jayron32 18:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The "campaign against him by right-wing blogs" that "was documented in newspapers" is the part I have a problem with. Ferrari's claims in a newspaper are completely different than Ferrari's claims on blogs. She was documenting what was going on in real time on the blogs, but months later, she suddenly is telling newspapers completely contradictory information. The info in the newspaper article cannot be independently verified, but it can be debunked by Ferrari's own statements on blogs. Of course, blogs are not reliable sources, though her statements on them might be usable as primary sources. The article as it looks right now is not too bad, and I am ALMOST inclined to switch to a keep, but I cannot be assured that the smear campaign that existed when this article was first nominated will not return, therefore, I am holding firm on my delete vote. If you want to look at a pretty good archive of all the blog activity during the event, check out the www.scamdy.com forums. They captured everything relevant there. Crockspot 18:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It looks like someone has added more references. The subject's involvement in the electronic voting debate has been referenced to the following respected sources now: the aforementions Seattle Weekly and HBO citations; FoxNews, who quotes his opinion in the field of electronic voting machines and fraud; the Seattle Times, which quotes both him and Bev Harris repeatedly with regard to the use of electronic voting in a specific Washington state election; The Guardian, a British newspaper, calls him an expert and cites both him and Bev Harris WRT their work on the Diebold machines specifically and specifically applies their work to potential problems in the U.K. (establishing international relevance); The Washington Post has much of the same as well. These sources establish the notability of the "Black Box Voting" organization, and clearly establish both Andy Stephenson and Bev Harris as co-equally notable in the topic as well. The fact that Ms. Harris does not have an article yet does not mean she is not notable; indeed I am certain it will be remedied soon. What more burden of verifiability do you place on this subject? These are not just Op-Ed pieces or articles by friends of the subject. RELIABLE sources cite his work in the field, and The Guardian even uses the word "expert" specifically to refer to him... -- Jayron32 18:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect and merge verified material to
Black Box Voting or Delete as failing
WP:BIO. The relevant standard is
WP:BIO. He won't meet the "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field" test, because the contribution, which may or may not enter the enduring historical record was Black Box Voting's, not his, and he did not lead the organization. A failed candidacy is not a basis of notability by Wikipedia standards. He fails the "primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person" test by not being a primary subject of anything in a
reliable source except his obituary. (The result on this test could change in the future, but not by blog posts about him.) He doesn't meet the "achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" test because the reliable sources continued to need to explain who he is (mostly associate director of BBV) every time they mention him. I appreciate the effort by
Jayron32 to clean-up the article.
GRBerry
18:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- reply now that is a reasonable arguement. I respectfully disagree; but that is the tone that should be taken on AfD. Also, Edison has made significant contributions; and there are others. I still posit that the additions make him notable. They also make the subjects of Bev Harris and Black Box Voting notable as well. -- Jayron32 18:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The fact the Bev was the director and he was the associate director in no way prevents him having an article in relation to his activities in the organization. Scott Palmer is Dennis Hastert's assistant and he has his own article. Stephenson has well established notability in his own right. If he is in the news, the fact that he was for a time part of the Black Box Voting organization does not somehow transfer all his notability to that organization and prevent an article about him.
Edison
19:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The term "smear campaign" is ambiguous in these discussions. To some it means that Freepers and others alleged that he was not sick, didn't have cancer, didn't need the money for an operation, and that he was just looking for money for personal use in general. Scamdy reports calls to the hospital and to the supposed surgeon, who could not legally release any info to outsiders in any event. The Scamdy website is self documenting with posts made blogs denying that he legitimately needed money for an operation and that he was gravely ill. It is also described in the Seattle paper articles. To others "smear campaign" means the claim made in 2005 that the aforementioned right-wing campaign caused his death by preventing the hospital getting the money in time for an operation to be done around March 10, which is not well documented. He had an operation toward the end of May and subsequently died. This was apparently disputed for some time. What part of that is POV? Edison 19:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The fact the Bev was the director and he was the associate director in no way prevents him having an article in relation to his activities in the organization. Scott Palmer is Dennis Hastert's assistant and he has his own article. Stephenson has well established notability in his own right. If he is in the news, the fact that he was for a time part of the Black Box Voting organization does not somehow transfer all his notability to that organization and prevent an article about him.
Edison
19:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep per VoiceOfReason. Weak because just scrolling through this flamewar was an effort, so I can't honestly claim to have read all of it. Maybe there were even more brilliant arguments that I just didn't read. Can't people restrain themselves to, oh, 5 paragraphs each or so? Please? AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- comment The existence of the website and forum Scamdy a forum with over a dozen subforums - specifically focused on discussing Andy's life, death and the controversies surrounding both - which claims that one subforum alone was read over 750,000 times - provides even more evidence of the notability of Andy's life and death. NBGPWS 20:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- The forum does not appear to be evidence of notability at all. The forum has less than 2500 posts, whereas many web forums can claim that many posts for a single user. You're really reaching here.-- Rosicrucian 22:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. Forums specifically devoted to discussing the lives of others from a critical point of view, like the forums discussing Keith Olbermann, Rush Limbaugh, etc, exist because those people are notable. If Andy and his work weren't notable, they wouldn't have started an ENTIRE FORUM about him. NBGPWS 22:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Anybody can start a webforum. It's not hard. These days they're the equivalent of having a Geocities site. Everybody and their brother has one. With very short notice one could be started on any topic you could name.-- Rosicrucian 22:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- You're wrong. Neither my brother nor I have forums about us, or anybody else. NBGPWS 00:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Now you're just being intentionally obtuse. The point is that a web forum is not evidence of notability. A web forum with an extremely low post-count as web forums go is even less compelling in an argument for notability. You are grasping at straws.-- Rosicrucian 00:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Remember to comment on content, not on the contributor. Thank you. NBGPWS 03:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- The content is that you are purposefully ignoring the point. I have cast no aspersions about the contributor other than that your argument in this case is nonsensical.-- Rosicrucian 03:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per wwwwolf. Not reading all this discussion, just the article, there's no compelling evidence of notability at the WP:BIO level. Sandstein 20:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep because he achieved notability among a small subset of the online community, if nowhere else. Also, I would advise user NBGPWS to refrain from any tagential outbursts and stick to the subject under discussion. Ruthfulbarbarity 22:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Notability among a small subset of the online community is not encyclopedic notability. It's not even close.-- Rosicrucian 22:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Not exclusively the online community. I think there were a few articles devoted to the controversy in alternative newspapers-although I could be mistaken-but yes, most of the publicity surrounding him was generated by large online communities, e.g. DailyKos, Democratic Underground, Free Republic, etc... I'm not going to argue vociferously against this article's deletion, because I don't think he is that notable, but I'm simply expressing my belief that he is of minor notability at least. Ruthfulbarbarity 22:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm mainly just arguing back that said "minor notability" as you describe it doesn't seem to correlate very well with WP:BIO and the standards it applies.-- Rosicrucian 23:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- comment I see that the article is once again pushing false claims about the freezing of funds prior to Andy's surgery. I retract my earlier statement that implied that I was teetering on my delete vote.
Crockspot
14:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- reply I removed unreferenced statements. Everything in there is now verifiable. -- Jayron32 20:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I spotted this nomination in AfD earlier on and was not sure on its status and decided not to just throw in a "vote" either way (hence, assuming good faith). The article did have references, and the subject "appeared" as a possible keeper in Wiki. Both sides of this debate have made good points, but wwwwolf’s input is the most convincing of the article and I agree with those points mentioned. Delete as nominated. JungleCat talk/ contrib 14:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Response to wwwolf's comments I think wwwolf has made one of the best delete arguements here, but I would like to counter it with some points. 1) He seems to figure prominently in the upcoming HBO documentary "Hacking Democracy" He is not the sole subject; but its not a biopic, it is about the entire topic, and other sites attest to his recognized expertise in that topic. 2) Several sources have specifically cited him for his work, and quote him specifically with regards to his work, or even call him an expert (The Guardian reference, for one example). He meets primary notability criteria: He's referenced in several reputable sources in a non-trivial way. 3) His notability is not necessarily as a journalist per se but as an activist. As an activist, he is certainly significantly more notable than the average activist. His appearence in several reputable sources in a non-trivial manner attests to that -- Jayron32 20:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree with CWC that the article is something of a vandal magnet, but so is George W. Bush. Vandalism and NPOV problems are reasons for patrolling, not deleting. JamesMLane t c 23:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Everybody pretty much talked out? No consensus for deletion, as evidenced by the extent of discussion here.
Edison
04:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Second I second that motion. Here here... --
Jayron32
04:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment That is not our decision to make here.
JungleCat
talk/
contrib
05:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Correct. The only real way to get this closed early would be to invoke
WP:SNOW, but that clearly doesn't apply here.--
Rosicrucian
16:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Correct, with obvious discussion and disagreement above, plus solitiations of outsiders to come here, this will stay open until a closing admin decides 1) which arguments from Wikipedia policy are stronger and 2) who they are going to choose to disenfranchise as not being an established editor. Plus, AFD runs for five days (plus however longer it takes the admins to get to it and decide the right answer - obvious closes generally close close to on time, things like this usually take longer). Then after that, somebody will decide the admin got the closure wrong, and it will go to deletion review. I can spell the deletion review coming on this already, and am not looking forward to it. GRBerry 16:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Correct. The only real way to get this closed early would be to invoke
WP:SNOW, but that clearly doesn't apply here.--
Rosicrucian
16:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment That is not our decision to make here.
JungleCat
talk/
contrib
05:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Second I second that motion. Here here... --
Jayron32
04:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Everybody pretty much talked out? No consensus for deletion, as evidenced by the extent of discussion here.
Edison
04:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete. While there are a lot of references, the article does not appear to show that this person was notable. Vegaswikian 21:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. It is on the borderline of notability, but I'm going to go with the benifit of the doubt. 11kowrom 01:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. i did some googling on this one. he is mentioned quite a few times in the nationwide mainstream media in his role as associate director of black box voting and also as candidate for office. he also has some coverage specifically on him via seattle weekly. while hardly overwhelmingly notable, this seems enough to me to keep around. it's also worth noting that this nom is part of a concerted AFD campaign, which i find extremely irritating on principle. Derex 04:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete A mess of an article for a minor figure. Piuro 18:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Barely notable figure whose barely notable status will only last a short time before he's likely forgotten. -- Strothra 22:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, oh, and let's cut the votes please, this is a !vote -- Tawker 03:53, 22 October 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.
- 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 delete. -- Core des at 07:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Uk.media.tv.misc
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
Non-notable newsgroup. Fails WP:WEB. 258 ghits [31], mainly groups.google and forums. A strong case of WP:AUTO and WP:COI. see here. -- IslaySolomon | talk 16:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. UMTM is a newsgroup, not a website, so I'm unsure if WP:WEB is strictly applicable. However, I note item 3;
| “ | The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. | ” |
- UMTM is re-distributed through Google Groups.
- Also, this group sees a significant amount of non-spam traffic, comparable to
other newsgroups with wikipedia articles. --
Billpg
16:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Google Groups does not qualify. it is just a simple unfiltered web interface to the raw newsgroups themselves (all of them - reaching back to the early 80s). Since it feeds all newsgroups equally, it cannot be used to determine if a newsgroup is unique or notable enough to rise above the noise and be listed here. The WP:WEB bullet you posted intended for things like flash animations, podcasts and other media that is plucked from the teeming mass of available media and re-broadcast by respected sources. (moved my comment so the discussion flows better - the multiple : used in the previous comment confused me) - CosmicPenguin ( Talk) 21:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Usenet newsgroups don't get articles by default; they have to be notable somehow. This one isn't. -- Aaron 16:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I don't see notability. Deli nk 18:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. An encyclopedia should be objective. A very subjective decision is being made here about "notability". There is clearly meaningful traffic on the NG and a definite "community" of regular posters. Either allow this, or allow none.
MurunB
20:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- This comment deleted by poster. Wow fab groovy 12.35, 19 October 2006 (BST)
- Notability isn't subjective. Does it satisfy WP:WEB? — Dark Shikari talk/ contribs 23:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not a notable newsgroup, and I have posted there. Fys. “ Ta fys aym”. 21:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Popularity within its own community does not a notable subject make. (little bit of Yoda there). I am active in several forums, for example ones regarding computer games I regularly play. Some of them are VERY active for game forums, with thousands of active members. Notability, however, can only be established from OUTSIDE of the subject in question. Have people who DON'T contribute note and reference this newsgroup? Are there verifiable, reputable, third party sources that can attest to its notability? If not, then the subject is not notable. -- Jayron32 04:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I read the group and occasionally post. I agree totally with the points made by Jayron32. Arganoid 21:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. U.m.t.m is one of my regular newsgroups and creating the page was a bit of fun, but I'm not sure it really adds anything. mh. 18:26, 18 October 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.
- Strong keep: Can be narrowed down to the highest subnational entities in different countries. Provinces and territories of Canada, states and territories of Australia, states and the D.C. of the United States, for example. Passer-by 17:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- 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 delete per WP:BIO, WP:V/ WP:RS, and WP:SPAM (the version that was nominated). The one reference in the stubified version is not about the subject of the article, which does not help its case. Article is being protected from re-creation until it can be shown that a neutral, non-self-promotional article can be written on this figure. -- Core des at 07:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Mimi Rothschild
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
Spam Dcobranchi 19:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete and marked as such. Wildthing61476 19:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Dcobranchi and/or others using that name have a several year history of spamming Ms. Rothschild (the subject of this article). She has been the recipient of repeated unwelcome contacts from individual(s) using "dcobranchi" and similar variations of this 'name'.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmandel ( talk • contribs) — Hmandel ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Somebody at an IP address registered to Learning By Grace, a company owned by Mimi Rothchild, originated the original wiki entry that was deleted as advertising. This one was edited to reflect Mimi's well documented history with charter schools in Pennsylvania. Mimi is not worthy of a Wikipedia entry and hopefully she has learned from this that Wikipedia is not a venue for self promotion. I support the nomination for deletion.-- IAATM 20:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- At least one article on Ms. Rothchild has already been deleted. Both that one and this new one were originally written in the style of an advertisement, and thus were inappropriate. This one has been edited by several people to both tone down the advertising and to include reference to Ms. Rothschild's involvement with the controversial Einstein charter school, an important part of Ms. Rothschild's history in the cyber-education field. The information about Einstein was verifible and cited credible references. If there is to be an article on Ms. Rothchild (and I can see the argument either way), it must be written in a neutral point of view, the information must be verifiable, and it must not be a veiled advertisement for Ms. Rothchild's current projects. People who wish to make changes to this article are encouraged to use the talk page for the article to work out their differences. Stargirl7 21:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Mr. Mandel's (Ms. Rothschild's husband) claims above are fabrications, and even were they true, are irrelevant to the current discussion.
- Sorry that was me. I forgot to sign in. -- Dcobranchi 22:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non notable. But I have reason to believe this is some kind of nonsensical game by the nominator and the above commentors. All of the above who have red links on them have at some time contributed to this article [39]. Why did they not delete it at that time instead they reverted vandalism and expanded it as well. Also the above red link users have around 50-100% of their contribs to this particular article or related stuff. Check out all of their individual contribs.
Dcobranchi [40] Stargirl7 [41] IAATM [42] -- Ageo020 ( Talk • Contribs) 00:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, if you remove all of the advertising from the current version, there's not much left:
"Mimi Rothschild is a child’s rights advocate" - not verified or supported.
"has authored a total of seven books on children’s education including Cyberspace for Kids" - I'll accept this.
"is the founder of several, distinguished online homeschooling academies" - distingushed is clearly advertising, the rest is OK.
"all created to assist homeschooling families with their every educational need" - advertising.
"Mimi Rothschild has helped change the face of education" - unsupported opinion. "using her own homeschooling experiences with her eight children; both Mimi Rothschild and her husband have reshaped the homeschooling experience for families all over the world" - again, advertising and unsupported.
"The Jubilee Academy, The Grace Academy, and The MorningStar Academy are all online homeschooling academies" - this is fine.
"that offer homeschooling parents innovative tools to educate their children in the home environment." - as do any other online schools; this description of an online school is better put on a page about online schools.
"The homeschooling academies that are overseen by Rothschild offer courses that are rooted in the Christian faith and the teachings of Christ." - advertising, though it could be modified to work.
"With a firm focus on the child’s individual development, courses are structured to address the unique needs of every child. Each course provides the child with the opportunity to improve their socialization skills, better their ethics, and to openly learn about the world in a real world setting." - advertising, plus veering away from being about Ms Rothschild herself.
"The MorningStar Academy offers 140 courses and courses focus on subjects such as English, Mathematics, Science, Art, Music, Technology, Health, History, Global Languages, Bible Studies, and more. Each course is created to meet the needs of the child that has attained a particular grade level of proficiency, and all of the homeschooling courses offered at The MorningStar Academy are structured to meet the needs of homeschoolers at particular grade levels, from elementary to high school levels." - again, this is more about the school itself rather than Ms. Rothchild, and generally is typical of all such schools.
"Included with the course enrollment, homeschooling families are offered an array of educational services including a 180-week lesson plan, educational transcripts, regular progress reports, access to a video library, and academic counselors are readily available to assist homeschooling parents with questions and concerns. The Grace Academy follows suit and offers courses for children that are kindergarten level to high school level. Meanwhile, the Jubilee Academy online differs from the Morningstar Academy only in the fact that it offers homeschooling parents the opportunity to start their homeschoolers early with a pre-school program. Further, each of the academies offers CD Rom based lessons for homeschoolers, a course catalog for children of every age, interactive Internet activities, and avenues of digital and paperless learning." - this is pure advertising, and again is about the schools rather than Ms. Rothschild.
Taking out the advertising, you are left with: "Mimi Rothschild has authored a total of seven books on children’s education including Cyberspace for Kids and is the founder of several online homeschooling academies. The Jubilee Academy, The Grace Academy, and The MorningStar Academy are all online homeschooling academies." (This is of course leaving aside the question of whether Ms. Rothschild's involvement with Einstein should be included.) I believe this article should be either deleted as advertising, or modified to include only verifiable information about Ms. Rothschild. (Note that this article was "speedy-deleted" once as advertising, but was re-posted.)
- Yes, it was speedy deleted the first time, and then Mimi (or her representative) decided to repost the advertisement. Since it was apparent at that point that we were playing whack-a-mole, several people decided to edit the article instead so that it was an accurate representation on Mimi Rothschild's contribution to cyber-schooling. You'll note that the article Mimi (or her representatives) object to is written in a neutral POV, and includes citations to other reputable sources for all included issues. The only version that has any business being on the wiki is the latest stargirl7 version. I and others are willing to agree to a delete just to make Mimi go away. However, what we won't stand for is her willful misrepresentation of her own history, thereby potentially misleading unknowing people that are researching her current cyber school operations. Anybody thinking about spending $2000 a year with her business has a right to know all the facts, not just the facts Mimi wants to advance.-- 71.161.45.242 00:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- That is me above - thought I was signed in. -- IAATM 00:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- At a minimum Ms. Rothschild satisfies the "Google Test" - 79,000 results, first 10 results are all for the person in question, and, excluding the Answers.Com mirror of Wikipedia, all are different domains and different content. On the other hand, all that the most recent stargirl17 edit really tells you is what Rothschild's most basic and verifiable claims are, plus stuff about the Einstein controversy -- all of which can also be learned from scanning the first 10 entries on Google; the top result is anti-Rothschild, and the next down (after Wikipedia) is Rothschild's own site. I'm very slightly in favor of keeping the article, but given the amount of reverting going on, I'm not sure whether any kind of a stable page can be achieved -- and while she might be important enough for a short article, she's not important enough for everyone to keep worrying about it. Lloannna 03:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Lloannna ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- If you put the name in quotes it is only 866 Google refs. More than a few of those hits are press releases for her academies.-- Dcobranchi 14:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- So, to sum up the comments so far, I don't see anyone arguing that the article should definately be kept. It's pretty much all "delete"s or weak "keep"s, so current consensus seems to be "delete". Anyone want to chime in and make a stronger case for keeping this one? Stargirl7 19:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete After reading the various versions, it doesn't appear that there IS any way to make a strong argument for keeping this. Given the history of prior deletion, I don't see how this isn't just another attempt at self-promotion, albeit worded slightly differently. OddAud 20:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- This appears to be advertising. I would like to see it deleted but if it is kept, then I think all of the facts should be allowed to be included even if it is negative information. Jumpinginpuddles 15:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Jumpinginpuddles ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Delete and protect. Self promotion spamming, likely to be repeated if deleted without salting. - Amatulic 23:16, 19 October 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.
- 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Linda Christas International School
|
|
ATTENTION!
You can participate and give your opinion. Please
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! |
| Please sign your comments with four tidles ( ~~~~ ). Please do not use ALL CAPS or bolding, as your comment will be modified. Anonymous editors may comment on the Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 16. |
Attempt to get around Linda Christas. Serial spammer-- Francisx 19:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- if this is re-creation of previously deleted material then it should be speedied. Pete.Hurd 22:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Google "Linda Christas International School." This isn't a real school. There are no references outside of Wiki-Spam. These people have been spamming dozens of Wiki-articles marketing their company.-- Francisx 02:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know. I thought the material had been recreated in this article form the deleted and protected article Linda Christas, if that was the case (I don't know what the contents of that article were) then this AfD is unnecessary and the article should be deleted on sight. Pete.Hurd 03:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- note to closing 'crat please verify that this is not merely a recreation of the Linda Christas should a "keep" consensus emerge. Pete.Hurd 03:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- This was the version deleted at the old afd; they're different enough that I wasn't comfortable speedying it while I was cleaning up its satellite articles. The old afd was closed early as a speedy, anyway, so it's not g4able. — Cryptic 04:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This appears to be a good-faith article about a school. High schools are generally notable. -- TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 23:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Please provide some evidence of the good faith you see, as I see nothing but spam. User:Zoe| (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- I see no evidence that Truthbringer has actually read the article in question, it's certainly not a highschool. But he has perused the article history to extend invitations to the sockpupets^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H authors of the article to come here and vote [43] [44]... Pete.Hurd 03:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- A pre-university school is most commonly known as a high school, although there are exceptions, such as a CEGEP. If the school is actually a tertiary or post-secondary institution, then we should remember that most such institutions are notable. I left the {{subst:adw|NAME OF ARTICLE}} messages on the talk pages because the nominator had chosen not to. Remember that WP:AFD states: "It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the article that you are nominating the article." Some comments refer to this school as a business. The context suggests that it is a not-for-profit charitable organization, but I have been unable to confirm this. That having been said, I feel that the term "crazy" is offensive and inappropriate, and I would ask the person who used that term to withdraw it. I think that the material that Richfife found ought to be mentioned in the article. -- TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 04:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- I added a Chilling Effects link to the article. Here's a link to the blog in question: [45]. I can't decide whether it belongs in the article proper or not. - Richfife 05:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- FYI: None of the full time staff appear to have any sort of advanced degree and only one has an official teaching credential: [46]. The "Linda Christas College Fund" makes no mention of actually ever having funded anything: [47]. They do list their goals, though. - Richfife 05:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Linda Christas College Fund is a 501c4 student advocacy group citation needed. That is NOT what is being shown on Wikipedia. What is being shown on Wikipedia is the School. If we are going to be critical, let's at least get our facts in order.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oppieangel2000 ( talk • contribs) 14:35, 18 October 2006.
- Having done some original research (I know we're not supposed to do that) and called around, I've found no evidence that LC International School has been accredited. Unaccredited schools are not normally notable. This appears to be a for-profit business of dubious notability. Long history of spamming Wikipedia should certainly raise eyebrows.-- Francisx 14:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Original Research is a good way to help you find secondary research, which can then be included. Good work! - Richfife 15:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Original Research doesn't belong in articles. The use of OR in AfD debates is not only legitimate, it is arguably necessary to evaluate claims made. Pete.Hurd 16:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep We have my brother's high school on Wikipedia. What's the diff. Actually, someone should have left the original Linda Christas alone as well. Too many editors who have emotional problems at Wikipedia. Another example, someone is going out of their way to put the word FUCK on Pat Boone's site, and reference to Amway. But the same person deletes that Pat Boone is President of the University Board at Pepperdine, and holds a chair at Linda Christas in honor of the black and blind concert Pianist John William Boone. I mean, the editor likes Fuck and Amway, but not Pepperdine University and Linda Christas. He's done it about ten times. Doesn't say much for the judgement of the editors. I'm going to put it in again. See if you see it when you check. I assume that the REAL editors of Wikipedia might agree that Pepperdine is a bit more notable that Fuck. Well, maybe not. Oppieangel2000
- — Oppieangel2000 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User:Zoe| (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It With schools in Poland, China and the United States, I think this school is more than notable. Butchalliran
- — Butchalliran ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User:Zoe| (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- KP It One small reference on Wikipedia to LC helped me find this great school. They literally saved my son's life. Keep It Keep It Thelystrom
- — Thelystrom ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User:Zoe| (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Extreme delete. NO references, zero Google hits for "Linda Christas International School" outside of Wikipedia spamming. This is worth reading. User:Zoe| (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It From my research, LC is a reputable school. The link Zoe sited is obviously written by a nut. If we delete this one, lots of good schools would need to be deleted also. imho! Tech27
- — Tech27 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User:Zoe| (talk) 02:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- EXTREME KEEP IT I counted 42 hits when doing a Linda Christas Search on Google. One of the reasons we have such a poor public school system is that every time a significantly good alternative comes along, a zillion people who are employed by the public schools pan it. This is unfortunatete. In addition, check out these same people who want to delete things on Wikipedia, they put such negative garbage in their own stuff. My goodness. If Wikipedia descends to their level, it will be worthless. GeorgeStanton
- Surprise, surprise. — GeorgeStanton ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . User:Zoe| (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Funny, I get ZERO Google hits when I look for "Linda Christas School". But so what? The article is titled "Linda Christas International School". If there is no such thing, then there should be no such article. If you think this school is so wonderful, then it should be really, really easy to provide reliable sources. User:Zoe| (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- delete as per nom. Pete.Hurd 03:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. No reliable sources, no verification or even substantial verifiability, not written according to a neutral point of view, not enough press coverage or publicly available resources to even allow us to write about it with a neutral point of view. Furthermore, it appears to be connected to a campaign to spam Wikipedia. Delete it and protect against recreation - this is the most perfect deletion candidate I have seen in a long time. Captainktainer * Talk 03:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It I think people are missing the point here. Linda Christas is a three country school. Wikipedia has one horse town schools in the Encyclopedia, so what is the problem with Linda Christas other than it's a good place for kids. Also, people need to understand that the web site for all three Linda Christas schools is listed under just Linda Christas, not Linda Christas International. The International designation is relatively recent because of their success in China. So ANY hit you get with a Linda Christas search and there are lots of them is good for Linda Christas International. Also, I agree with one of the comments above. The people like The Taoist, and the Miles Williams of the world are really crazy. If those kinds of people win something like this, we are lost.— 71.142.236.117 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- What are the addresses and phone #'s of the Linda Christa schools in Poland and China? All I see on the site are some faded photos that look like they were scanned from old postcards. - Richfife 07:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, Keep It I think that a lot of the trouble here is that one has to look at who and what Linda Christas has accomplished. I mean Sue Grafton, Pat Boone, Efrem Zimbalist Jr. and Alison Jiear don't lend their names to just any project. In the case of Mr. Boone, the only other school he is affiliated with is Pepperdine University. Are we going to say that Linda Christas is not notable. Efrem Zimbalist is a Pulitzer winner for cripes sake. Do you think that he would willy nilly allow his name to be used by scammers and spammers. Let's get real Wiki RolandPatina— RolandPatina ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Sue Grafton, Pat Boone, Efrem Zimbalist Jr. and Alison Jiear don't lend their names to just any project. Really? doesn't the evidence presented here suggest just the opposite?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.40.121 ( talk • contribs)
- delete, nn pyramid scam. — Cryptic 03:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per all above. Coordinated attempt at spam. Resolute 03:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Google search turns up 1) High pressure marketing 2) Complaints about scammish nature of the business 3) Legal attempts (copyright nastygrams, etc.) to shut up #2. No press coverage that isn't blatantly PR from the organization itself that I can find. This is not the first attempt to recreate under a different name. - Richfife 04:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The negative material I see on Google regarding Linda Christas has nothing to do with anyone or anybody who knows anything about Linda Christas. That's what's happening here. The negative posts are from people who a reasonable person would listen to and then do the exact opposite thing. A Taoist and a Racist. I mean, Linda Christas was accused of racism. Take a look at the faces on their Board. If one can call this school racist, then the KKK is not.
- Anyway, this school is worthy of being on Wikipedia. If one is counting socks, maybe not. But if one is really wanting to have something worthwhile on the data base then, for heavens sake, girls, back off. Linda Christas has been supported on D.C. Radio. New York City Radio (Public service radio - not high pressure sales radio). It has a record of ZERO BBB complaints unsatisfied. I mean this school is attacked everywhere it tries to help kids, and help kids they do (without one penny of our tax money). One lady wrote a letter complaining that she didn't like the name of the School and if they didn't change it, she was going to file with the BBB. I mean really!!!!
- So I ask you, why would you delete this school when if you just read the stuff that is said that is negative about Linda Christas you will see that none of the people complaining have a single child in the school. They just like to complain, as so many Americans do.
- Linda Christas is an elite school with some of the best minds and personalities in the world supporting it. Captain Jim Lovell (Apollo 13) is considering accepting a seat on the Linda Christas Advisory Committee, and NONE of the celebrities or scientists or authors that currently are on the Committee are paid a dime to contribute their leadership to the school. Again, if you girls are salvageable, there is no doubt about the merits of Linda Christas. This article needs to stay.
ShirleyDobbins
- — Possible single purpose account: ShirleyDobbins ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Keep If any of the components of the Linda Christas site are worthy of a listing on Wikipedia, I would think logically that the full site would also be worthy. People like Pat Boone, Efrem Zimbalist Jr, Sue Grafton, and Alison Jiear felt comfortable having their rather awesome names used in connection with this school. They all have Wikipedia listings. Wouldn't we say by extension then that Linda Christs is deserving of at least a small space. For example, the Pat Boone listing is several times the length of the proposed Linda Christas site. I say keep the site, and if necessary have some portions re-written although it seems pretty objective to me as it is.
- Keepyoursocksdry— Possible single purpose account: Keepyoursocksdry ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Keep Are you guys serious that you want to get all the trash from trashy people and put that in Linda Christas' write-up. Why??? The people who have written on the net anything negative about Linda Christas know nothing about the school. Just read the comments. It would be like including the 3000 unanswered BBB complaints that IBM currently has on file. Why not put that in the IBM article???? Because the complaints against IBM are generally made because there was a loose wire somewhere, and not necessarily in the equipment. If you go to legitimate sources for complaints like the BBB....maybe. But IBM's 3000 unanswered complaints ARE with the BBB. So now with Linda Christas that has had ONE BBB complaint in nine years, and that one not even from a family who had a student in the school, that's what you are going to use to characterize this school??? Is anyone seriously thinking that's an objective listing of relevant material or relevant to deciding whether this school is notable?— Bestofseven ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete or speedy as spam. With all the massive astroturfing and sockpuppeting going on, it's impossible to consider this a good-faith attempt at an encyclopedia article. If the school exists and is notable, it can have an article at a later date, written by an impartial and uninvolved third party. For now, we have no reason to perpetuate anyone's wikispam campaign. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - I fear not the awesome name of Efrem Zimbalist, Jr., especially when it comes to a high-pressure sales/marketing program like this. Robertissimo 12:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - non-notable advertising for a pyramid scheme that is trying to use Wikipedia to make a scam look legitimate. Protect to prevent recreation. -- Charlene.fic 12:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Is the school recognized or accredited by a recognized accrediting agency? -- TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 13:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- No, it isn't. I spent a good ten minutes calling around. No evidence that it's been accredited. Francisx 14:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- I notice that the "school's" e-mail address appearing here is "@lindas.com", odd that this "school" isn't in an ".edu" domain of some sort. Pete.Hurd 16:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and in a minor way per Andrew Lenahan. -- Nuclear Zer0 13:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. *drew 14:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment In addition to Richfife's helpful links above, this [48] from a dissatisfied customer is interesting and possibly enlightening. Robertissimo 16:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, spam - doesn't seem to be anything verified either.-- Nilfanion ( talk) 21:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
TO ALL OF THE NEW USERS WHO HAVE COME HERE TO VOTE "KEEP":
- Please realize that, in order for an article to be on Wikipedia, it has to
verifiable, with
reliable sources. the school's publicity and its website are not reliable sources, neither are testimonials from supposed well-satisified students and their parents. We need news articles from reputable newspapers which discuss this school. We need cites from books and magazines which talk about it. Until and unless those sources are provided, there is
no chance that this article can be kept, under our policies and guidelines.
User:Zoe|
(talk)
23:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- The new users who have come here to vote keep have, coincidentally, been confirmed to be from the same IP. [49] — Cryptic 22:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not because of the lame sockpuppets, which do very little to sway me in either direction, but due to the lack of verifiable sources. Find some and maybe I'll change my mind. RFerreira 01:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. No sources Googled it and Wikipedia was the only source I could find. Advertising spam.-- Lord of Illusions 06:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I see that all attempts to correct the unfounded assumptions being made by the reviewers here are being deleted. For example, the gossip with no substantiation or checking with Linda Christas is being allowed. But, anyone offering substantitive actual experience with the school is evidently not worthy of consideration.
- I am also a student at Linda Christas, and the student body is becoming amazed at the low level of research that passes for objectivity here. At least Opal was willing to give you guys a chance to correct these mistakes that you have been making. But, evidently Wikipedia is not interested in facts, just gossip. So be it. I sure am not going to recommend that anybody look to you guys for reliable information if a school like mine can be banned from being listed. I'm suprised you have Harvard listed. But you do. Also, Altamont Kindergarten. Now there's a notable school for you. I'll drop by to see if they even know you've got them. CYRIL LEE
- Caps removed by Naconkantari
- Keep it: Substantiation: 40 hits google 31 hits Yahoo 37 hits metacrawler. None of these hits except the three from people who weren't accepted by Linda Christas or certainly haven't had experience with the school are to be seen on this page.
Even the factual material on the site including trade references, government references, media references, and Advisory Committee references, all these were deleted yesterday.
I'd post them again, but what's the use. You guys don't want to hear anything but your own voices. I have asked the Linda Christas Help Desk if ANYONE has contacted the school from Wikipedia. The answer is a resounding NO. This is the same level of "research" that is typical of persons who love hiding under rocks. And, you call yourselves objective? Dr. Ethel Strom. Parent whose children attend Linda Christas and proudly so. Thelystrom
- — Possible single purpose account: Thelystrom ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. User:Zoe| (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Please post the Google hits for "Linda Christas International School ", since I found none. Perhaps your search comes up with different results from mine. But once again, as I said above, please read WP:RS. First person accounts are not reliable sources. We need neutral, third-party sources. User:Zoe| (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Dear Zoe: Perhaps we need you to contact the Linda Christas Dean for input. But, that's probably not acceptable. Trade references are third parties and they were posted yesterday and were promptly deleted. I first discovered Linda Christas in Curious Parent Magazine, and then again in a submission to the English teachers forum at the State Department.
- If all of this fuss is about whether this is a credible school, I would hope that Wikipedia has expended this much energy on all schools. I'm fairly confident that that is not the case.
- I have just Googled for Linda Christas again, and you are correct, most of the hits are from parents and students of Linda Christas. The only comments that are from third parties are those with zero experience with the school. And, of course, those are quoted above. They are indeed third parties, one from a blogger (no knowledge of Linda Christas, but plenty of opinion) and Miles Williams (a person so far to the left that no minority person would ever have to do anything to live in mansions. Good luck to Wikipedia if this is the standard. Dr. Mason Ridge
Drraymondridge
23:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- — Possible single purpose account: Drraymondridge ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. User:Zoe| (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- I have just Googled for Linda Christas again, and you are correct, most of the hits are from parents and students of Linda Christas. The only comments that are from third parties are those with zero experience with the school. And, of course, those are quoted above. They are indeed third parties, one from a blogger (no knowledge of Linda Christas, but plenty of opinion) and Miles Williams (a person so far to the left that no minority person would ever have to do anything to live in mansions. Good luck to Wikipedia if this is the standard. Dr. Mason Ridge
Drraymondridge
23:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Read this: WP:RS. When you've read it, come back and say so here: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Linda_Christas_International_School. Then we can discuss it. Thanks! - Richfife 23:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment Yes, I understand. However, this policy is like saying that if I call you a crook, then you must find a party who doesn't know you to deny the charge. I don't see how a rule of this kind can possibly end up with other than the grimmest innacuracies. You can see this kind of thing in action on this talk page. Only persons who don't seem to have the slightest idea about Linda Christas can be quoted, and all of them are certainly light years away from center. Dr. Mason Ridge Drraymondridge
- OK, I can see why you might feel that way. Yes, some people on this page feel that Linda Christas is not legitimate. I'm one of them. I could be wrong, so could everyone else. I think there are two issues in play here, each of them with different places they should be played out. If you don't like the policy of
reliable sources, then you need to go here:
Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources. We'll call that page #1. If you feel the policy is not being used correctly on this page, then this is the page to discuss it. We'll call this page #2. If you have complaints about the policy not being used correctly and complain about them at page #1, then no one will pay attention (wrong place). If you have complaints about the policy itself, and post about it in page #2, you will look like someone that only cares about this one article and no others. Wikipedians really hate that. We're here to make this a better resource across the board. -
Richfife
00:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I see your point here. But, I have no desire to begin a parliamentarian discussion of Roberts Rules. I just think that if the policies lead you to exclude a person or entity I know to be at the forefront of educational practice, if not theory, that is a disservice to anyone who might appreciate a look at the present with a bias (in a positive sense) toward the future. In that situation, only traditional organizations and theories will have an opportunity to meet with favor here, and in this age of speed and dynamic change, Wikipedia will become less desirable as a source than many of the established encyclopedias. (The yearly Americana is normally obsolete upon publication. That's one reason that Google and Metacrawler are consulted BEFORE Wikipedia. They understand the need for virtual change. Unless Wikipedia can overcome its own inertia, I'm afraid it will rapidly become massively redundant.)
- Said differently, accuracy is one thing;being the best is another. I had hoped (and still hope) that Wikipedia can maneuver out from under the weight of encyclopedic "tradition" and truly become the dynamic venture that was its original vision. To that end I am certainly willing to contribute to Wikipedia. I am, however, going to allow this issue with Linda Christas to be a litmus test for me. If with all the input now posted on the net, and with the trade references and reputations of the persons supporting Linda Christas, the rules of inclusion/exclusion have already grown so cumbersome (not to say Jurassic) at Wikipedia so as to exclude Linda Christas, Wikipedia has moved beyond my personal exclusion "Event Horizon." On the other hand, if obstacles to the publication of the newest and most eagerly awaited societal changes can be reflected in something approaching real time by Wikipedia, without a planetary eruption when "traditional" long term sources are not available, Wikipedia will indeed be the FIRST knowledge source ever to surpass the glories of a search engine by virtue of its scholarship. If you wish, I am willing to interview the principals at this school, and re-create something for you to look at. But, from my perspective what they have already provided to the Wikipedia authorities, seems sufficient to maintain their listing. I can certainly corroborate some of it myself. (For example, I have met and entertained Efrem Zimbalist Jr. on several occasions. He is a very family oriented individual who loved and respected his father and mother very much. With his work at the Curtis Institute (which I do not see mentioned on his listing with Wikipedia, and his acceptance of a chair with Linda Christas, I frankly don't understand how Wikipedia can exclude these facts. Let me know if I can help. Dr. Mason Ridge 71.143.28.120
- If this institution is indeed noteable for "[being] at the forefront of educational practice, if not theory" then surely you can cite some reliable, verifiable sources to substantiate that claim. -- ElKevbo 05:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Again, you've provided absolutely no way for anyone to verify your claim. You say Christas was in "Curious Parent" magazine. Is this it: [50] ? If so, it's very small. Which issue has an article about Christas in it? If Efrem Zimbalist is involved, why is his picture on the website a 50 year old headshot (He's 88 years old now)? Why not a picture of him with a staff member or student? Over and over again, all we get are testimonials ("Linda Christas saved my life!") and unsupported assertions ("Linda Christas is on the cutting edge of educational edge cutting!") You act offended that we aren't taking your word for it. Well, we're not supposed to. Wikipedia articles are considered guilty until proven innocent, and no evidence that has not provably come from outside of the Linda Christas organization has appeared. If you could get one of the celebrities listed as an endorser to come forward without any Christas employee acting as a go between and discuss their support of the organization, it would help, but it would probably not get the article all the way. Celebrity endorsements are not enough by themselves. Oh, and by the way, I often lose track of things here and there, but I never ever forget my own first name. You've been going back and forth between Raymond and Mason. - Richfife 07:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete due to lack of verifiability. Cynical 11:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: The problem with the reasoning above is that we are expecting an institution that is fighting hudreds of billions of dollars a year in tax money to do more than point to its theory sources. You are not going to find lots of people in the community saying "gee whiz" what a wonderful way to change the system. Both the Waldorf schools and the Linda Christas schools have been under attack for three or four years for their policies regarding introducing material to children when the children are ready for it rather than treating them like cookies.
- In my substantial travels, I have seen Linda Christas mentioned in several newspapers, albeit not the New York Times. One newspaper was in the Los Angeles area (Los Cerritos Community News), and the other when I was traveling in Oregon (Argus Newspapers) I have also heard Linda Christas mentioned on public radio at least in Watertown, New York (Their fund raising auction in 2005. Linda Christas had donated a scholarship to them to auction off.) And, as mentioned, you can find articles about the school in Curious Parent Magazine. Further, some public high school districts have recently been picking up the Linda Christas rules for selecting extracurricular eactivities, Dedham High School District, for example.
- (Start interjection)
- The "Hillboro Argus" or the "Argus Observer"? Which issue? Which issues of the "Los Cerritos Community News"? Which public radio station? What was the time and date? Which issue of "Curious Parent" magazine? There is no "Dedham High School District", but there is a "Dedham High School" here: [51]. Is this the correct school? Which department are you referring to? Who should I contact? - Richfife 15:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- (Stop interjection)
- There is also a blogging series that people can contribute to on the net. You can see that at www.lindachristas.net I believe.
- (Start interjection)
- This would provide extra detail to the article, but until there are verifiable sources for notability, there's no article. - Richfife 15:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- (Stop interjection)
- Keep in mind that Linda Christas is not a traditional school with a traditional campus, There are no buildings for the tax payers to support with the name Linda Christas over the doors. And, no reporters COVERING Linda Christas FOOTBALL. Linda Christas receives no tax money, nor tax favored money. They have approximately 4000 students internationally. I personally know two of the students currently studying to attend U.S. Universities next year who live in south east China (If it would help, I can ask their permission for you to contact them for verification.) You can contact any of the people on the Advisory Committee to ascertain the existence of the school if you wish. Surely, we are not going to be so petty as to deny that the MOST convincing and important material about Linda Christas, they have already published for the world to see.) Certainly that must count for something. If I asked the writer above to substantiate his or her existence, surely if Dr. Gregory Huckabee, former high ranking officer in the Adjutant Corps were willing to verify the fine work he/she (the writer above) were doing, wouldn't that be superior to his/her name being registered in a box score in the Baltimore Sun? Or are we so convinced that the traditional means of doing everything is what we want for Wikipedia. Dr. Shroeder P.S. I know Dr. Mason R. Ridge by reputation only. Is someone attempting to attack that good man? That would be sad indeed— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.241.76 ( talk • contribs)
- Note thusfar the following sockpuppets of Oppieangel2000 have been confirmed and blocked: Butchalliran, Thelystrom, Tech27, GeorgeStanton, RolandPatina, ShirleyDobbins, Keepyoursocksdry, Bestofseven, Synqopation, Referee36, Julieismywife, Buddydebrill, Manysummers. Also blocked as sock: Drraymondridge. Pete.Hurd 15:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- For a military article, Dr. Huckabee might count. For this one, not so much. I was replying to a post signed by "Dr. Mason Ridge", pointing out the inconsistency. You suddenly stepped in. - Richfife 15:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- I can not find any listing for a "Dr. Raymond M. Ridge" or a "Dr. Raymond Mason Ridge" in any professional directories. What is his specialty? Thanks! - Richfife 15:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant to say "Dr. Mason R. Ridge". Still no matches. Also and again, solicited testimonials from non-notable people don't count. We need notable people with relevant experience in the field speaking out entirely for themselves on their own dime, or it's a no go. - Richfife 17:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Not one of the Linda Christas Advisory Committee receives a penny for lending their names to LC for verification purposes. It is simply a pro bono arrangement all around. The only thing that the members of the Advisory Committee are guilty of is being impressed enough with LC to be willing to link their names and reputations with Linda Christas.
- Let me ask a question here: Let's take for our example the pioneering surgeon, Dr. Ronald Allison (put his name into the Google search engine) who sits on the Linda Christas Advisory Committee without pay. Is Wikipedia saying that BEFORE Dr. Allison knew enough about Linda Christas to agree to serve on the Advisory Committee without pay, he would have been a personage Wikipedia would have accepted for verification of its (LC's) existence. However, since Dr. Allison was evidently impressed enough to have his name linked with Linda Christas he is now disqualified? Does that go for the rest of the people who purposely allowed their names to be used for verification as well?.... though again NONE of the members of the Advisory Committee are paid a nickel for their efforts on behalf of the School. Is Wikipedia taking the position that if a celebrity or noted personality goes out of their way for FREE to help an organization, Wikipedia disqualifies that person or persons.
- Said differently, I am getting the impression that, since Linda Christas' intent was to recruit noted, responsible people to be on their Advisory Committee, so that parents could verify the quality of the Linda Christas offerings, this very act of getting the person on the Committee disqualifies that person from verifying that the School exists. So, let's say Captain Jim Lovell joins the Committee as he might, he's considering it, but like the others, wanted, of course, to investigate before committing. Now, BEFORE Captain Lovell completes his study of the School to decide if he can support its programs, before he has done that, Wikipedia will accept Captain Lovell's judgment in terms of verifying Linda Christas' existence. But, if he actually becomes enthused about LC and accepts a seat on the Committee, then he is disqualified according to the Wikipedia rules?
- It's really difficult for me to see the logic in that case. It would be like verifying that George Bush is still physically functional by disqualifying his Cabinet, and then asking the guard in the White House lobby for verification. Can this be? Can Wikipedia really have such a policy, and remain respected???
- I am just wanting to understand who in the world an organization might call upon to know enough about it to be favorably impressed, BUT NOT TOO FAVORABLY impressed, i.e. a level of impression that is sufficient for them NOT to want to help that organization, and yet having enough information to satisfy Wikipedia rules.
- I submit the names of the Linda Christas Advisory Committee for verification of LC's standing. There isn't a high school in the Nation with a more impressive board. Look at the boards of ANY of the high schools in your area or that have been previously listed on Wikipedia without fanfare. Other boards don't even come close, and yet, Wikipedia seems ready to reject what in effect is one of the finest assemblies of celebrity and doctoral talent for any high school in America. I hope I am somehow wrong here. I challenge anyone to try to find a better Advisory Group for a high school!! If LC is not listed by Wikipedia at the end of this discussion, I would say that the illogic of that decision would disqualify Wikipedia, at least in my mind, from ever being taken seriously. In that case, I would actually advise LC to stay away from Wikipedia. It would be a disgrace to BE listed if the logic I am hearing is accurate.I JUST DON'T BELIEVE WIKIPEDIA EDITORS ARE CARELESS OR ARBITRARY ENOUGH TO MAKE A DECISION OF THAT KIND. Please prove me right! BettyCharette
- (Can we get a sock check on BettyCharette?) You're referring to a list that appears only on the website. There is no public reciprocal acknowledgement from any of the big names on it. I've only been able to establish contact with one member of the list so far, but they have neither confirmed nor denied anything yet. What the high schools in a particular area do is not in doubt. What Linda Christas does is in doubt. All information about its doings has come through the organization itself. I can make grandiose claims too. - Richfife 20:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It: You guys are not even attempting to think this through. To have those people pictured on the Internet WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION would cost Linda Christas millions in law suits, and it would be all over the newspaper. Where is the logic here. (Remember Barbara Streisand sued an environmnetalist for 16 million for just taking a photo of her house and putting it on the net.) This seems to be a bit like the inquisition. I mean any thoughtful person it seems to me would understand the reality of public images, and how much money some of these people command just for an appearance. For images to be placed without permission would be financial suicide, not to mention the national press panning Linda Christas forever. I give up people. At this time, I really don't believe anything any commentator would say would persuade you of the illogic of what you are saying here. This is not a good reflection of the kinds of individuals defending Wikipedia's position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BettyCharette ( talk • contribs)
- "We must have the rights to do this because if we didn't we'd get sued" isn't an argument. We're trying to get at truth, but we're not getting past truthiness. - Richfife 20:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
KEEP IT: I agree, it's NOT an argument, It's the ONLY argument that means anything. That you don't accept it is marvelously illogical from my perspective. Why would a separate list anywhere mean anything?(I can put one on the net if you would like. I'll just write a blog, eh. Would you accept that? Of course not. Who do you think is going to be wanting to compile the Advisory Committee list of a private school? As an experiment, why don't you choose any celebrity. Then, go ahead and copy a photo and put your name next to it saying that the celebrity endorses you. I'm certain you wouldn't do that. WHY. You know why.
BettyCharette
- Already commented above. Naconkantari 21:12, 19 October 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.
- 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 delete. -- Mr. Lefty ( talk) 23:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Frankie Dunlop
Was originally put up for speedy-deletion, but there are Google results. P.B. Pilh e t / Talk 22:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete for no content.
JHMM13 (
T |
C)
23:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete & Redirect - CrazyRussian talk/ email 23:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy A7, no assertion of notability (and redir where?)-- Nilfanion ( talk) 20:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, under CSD A1, and CSD A7. I'd delete it myself, but since its here already... Tito xd( ?!?) 20:59, 17 October 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.
- 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 "speedy" delete. -- Core des at 07:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Mu Beta Zeta
vanity page for NN-organization at some North Carolina summer camp DesertSky85451 23:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy. Clearly nn.
JHMM13 (
T |
C)
23:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete A7. No notability at all, likely vanity. Google renders 9 results, Yahoo 6 (all unrelated).-- Hús ö nd 03:58, 17 October 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.
- 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 no consensus. Please defer merge discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Madison Country Day School
Primary schools are generally not notable, generally it is only high schools that are listed. I find no reason why this school has any reason to be listed based on its notability. It also fails the proposed guideline WP:SCHOOL. TheRanger 23:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Fails to assert notability.-- Hús ö nd 03:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Does not meet WP:SCHOOL. Catchpole 06:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Verifiable and notable. Merchbow 15:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Please explain how its notable you have left same reply on several AfD's without details. TheRanger 19:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with the school district page per WP:SCHOOLS. — RJH ( talk) 20:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Merge due to lack of content. Cynical 11:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all enduring public institutions. --
Centauri
14:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. This is an unreasonable position, as it implies having a Wikipedia article for every DMV office. Here, this user incredibly claimed to favor that. Pan Dan 22:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge. Do not keep. Vegaswikian 21:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, not super notable but the school exists and is verifiable. All schools have some encyclopedic value. bbx 15:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Centauri and bbx. -- Myles Long 17:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all schools are notable to their community, notability is a relative term and not a valid deletion criteria, verifiability is (and its also not something thats relative... it either is or it isnt).
ALKIVAR
™
17:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- (1) "Notable to their community" has nothing to do with encyclopdic notability. (2) Non-notability is a valid deletion criterion, otherwise we wouldn't have guidelines like WP:CORP or WP:BIO. Pan Dan 22:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- By analogy with aforementioned guidelines WP:CORP and WP:BIO, which require multiple non-trivial sources featuring the subject, and having actually looked for sources myself and coming up empty, I say delete. (This school even fails the excessively permissive proposed guideline WP:SCHOOL.) Pan Dan 17:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for reasons which are explained at
User:Silensor/Schools (see also
User:JoshuaZ/Schools if interested). Nominator appears to be repeatedly and conveniently ignoring the fact that
WP:SCHOOLS suggests merging, not deletion, in borderline cases.
Silensor
19:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- You misunderstand the nominator's rationale for deletion. It's based on non-notability, not on WP:SCHOOLS. He mentions that the school fails the criteria of WP:SCHOOLS only to bolster the argument for deletion, as those criteria are perceived as being overly inclusive. Pan Dan 21:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- keep please per silensor it is notable and verifiable too Yuckfoo 21:25, 21 October 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.