- 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 all three articles Deville (Talk) 02:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm proposing this and two other articles by the same author for deletion, because they are either extremely non notable neologisms, or otherwise plain and simple hoaxes. Author (of the neologisms, and of the articles) calls himself "noted", but is extremely invisible on Google. Neologisms are equally unused, and seem to fail at least two Wikipedia policies, WP:NOR and WP:V Fram 20:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominated: Sills Point and Tropposite. Fram 20:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To quote the wikipedia standards you cite in your proposition for deletion: Self-published and dubious sources in articles about themselves: Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as:
It is relevant to the person's or organization's notability; It is not contentious; It is not unduly self-serving; It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it.
Clearly every single article I submitted meets these criteria, and therefore my articles should not be deleted.
Sillsm
- Go to WP:NOR, and read the section: What is excluded. The section you quote is irrelevant, as a) the article is not about yourself, but about some idea you supposedly launched, and b) there are no sources given. Fram 05:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To rebut your interpretation of the wikipedia criteria:
a) The article is clearly about myself as my name is in it and it cites me as a source.
b) All material considered for deletion has been self-published, and distributed in a university setting. Therefore I am the authoritative source to cite on these ideas. And this does not violate WP:NOR, because all ideas presented here are at least a year old. Sillsm
- Delete as violating WP:NOR; WP:NEO and possible WP:VANITY as coined in late 2005 by cultural anthropologist and symbolic theorist Maxwell Sills, given that the article was created by User:Sillsm. --Kinu t/c 05:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kinu I suggest you read WP:VANITY more carefully. I have here cited a relevant passage to clarify its meaning. As you have begun to edit and mame my defense, I believe you are no longer an impartial third party. The merits of my articles should be judged by the community as a whole, and not single partial editors.
An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia (although consensus exists regarding particular kinds of articles, for instance see Template:IncGuide). Borderline cases are frequently nominated for deletion and discussed on WP:AFD. Lack of fame is not the same as vanity.
- Comment: There is no point in continuing this discussion. WP:VANITY also says Wikipedia's policy on verifiability prohibits the inclusion of things that are not verifiable from independent sources. Unless you can satisfy WP:V, which is policy, this article will be deleted. Please read it along with WP:RS and WP:CITE. --Kinu t/c 18:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both Maxwell Sills and Courtney Chatellier, both mentioned in the article, are high school students.24.61.160.163 This comment deleted here; restored.
Where is the proof that the two authors mentioned in the articles are currently enrolled in high school? There are no credentials accredited to the two authors except notoriety in their respective fields, which is subjective. There is only the mention of the ideas being distributed in a university setting. Where is the proof for that?
- Comment: As far as I can tell, there is no proof of anything, including the theories mentioned in the article, which is why those who have commented on this AfD have argued for deletion. Yes, notoriety is subjective, but passing WP:V is not. (FYI, Wikipedia policy says to remove personal attacks in AfDs, but saying that the author is a high school student does not, in my opinion, fall into that category, which is why I have warned you twice for removing the above comment.) --Kinu t/c 05:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The theories in the articles are exactly that- theories. They are new ideas derived from literary criticism, and stand on their own legs. There is no truth or falsehood to a theory or concept. The articles don't make any claims at all, just explain the use of critical tools and give examples for their possible usage.
- Comment: Yeah, I can't tell if this is supposed to be in support of the article or in support of deletion either. --Kinu t/c 22:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.