The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / ( talk) 23:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC) reply
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 autobio vanispamcruftisment Wuh Wuz Dat 22:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Jonthanfernandez ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC). — Jonthanfernandez ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Abc518 Lishnet has reason to be critical of Sandor's posts. I've also found them to be a bit... off putting, certainly not constructive. Also I don't think Lishnet was suggesting that "everyone should have a wikipedia page" nor do I think Lishnet was suggesting that Wikipedia is like a blog. I think they were just trying to point out that there are a lot of dance music artists of notoriety, Johnston being one of them and that deleting his page seemed like a bad choice. I have to be honest, there are a lot of really lame pages on here by DJs and other members of the electronic dance music community that clearly have absolutely no notoriety whatsoever, yet their pages aren't flagged for deletion. ...so why pick on Johnston's article? I'm guessing because he was stupid enough to start it himself, but that doesn't mean he's not notable or that his page should be deleted. Everyone on here but Sandor has agreed that Johnston is notable in his field, albeit to varying degrees. And yes I already read WP:WAX but you know something, when does common sense come into play? I am fairly new to Wikipedia so I obviously don't know all the rules for arguing my points. However, I have managed to do some reading regarding arbitration and one of the pages I read clearly stated that Common sense should also be applied in matters such as this...and while I'm on the topic of common sense whoever posted at the top of this page that Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement applied to Johnston's article is... way off. According to the page I read on this all the properties have to apply for it to be true. From what I can tell other than the fact that Johnston might have started his own article, none of these definitions apply. This is clearly not an article written to promote a small business, post a personal resume or promote a fringe area of interest with limited appeal. Tact, constructiveness and common sense go a long way in a discussion or debate. These would seem to be good traits for an admin to have.
I am new to Wikipedia as a collaborator but have been using Wikipedia for years, and have specific interest in articles regarding electronic dance music artists.
Lishlet ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC). reply
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / ( talk) 23:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC) reply
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 autobio vanispamcruftisment Wuh Wuz Dat 22:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Jonthanfernandez ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC). — Jonthanfernandez ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Abc518 Lishnet has reason to be critical of Sandor's posts. I've also found them to be a bit... off putting, certainly not constructive. Also I don't think Lishnet was suggesting that "everyone should have a wikipedia page" nor do I think Lishnet was suggesting that Wikipedia is like a blog. I think they were just trying to point out that there are a lot of dance music artists of notoriety, Johnston being one of them and that deleting his page seemed like a bad choice. I have to be honest, there are a lot of really lame pages on here by DJs and other members of the electronic dance music community that clearly have absolutely no notoriety whatsoever, yet their pages aren't flagged for deletion. ...so why pick on Johnston's article? I'm guessing because he was stupid enough to start it himself, but that doesn't mean he's not notable or that his page should be deleted. Everyone on here but Sandor has agreed that Johnston is notable in his field, albeit to varying degrees. And yes I already read WP:WAX but you know something, when does common sense come into play? I am fairly new to Wikipedia so I obviously don't know all the rules for arguing my points. However, I have managed to do some reading regarding arbitration and one of the pages I read clearly stated that Common sense should also be applied in matters such as this...and while I'm on the topic of common sense whoever posted at the top of this page that Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement applied to Johnston's article is... way off. According to the page I read on this all the properties have to apply for it to be true. From what I can tell other than the fact that Johnston might have started his own article, none of these definitions apply. This is clearly not an article written to promote a small business, post a personal resume or promote a fringe area of interest with limited appeal. Tact, constructiveness and common sense go a long way in a discussion or debate. These would seem to be good traits for an admin to have.
I am new to Wikipedia as a collaborator but have been using Wikipedia for years, and have specific interest in articles regarding electronic dance music artists.
Lishlet ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC). reply