Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Lessman

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, since there is consensus that the sources put forward are either not independent or not substantial enough. Tikiwont (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Lessman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Vanity article, fails WP:BIO by a mile. Editor claims to be a historian (on the basis he draws maps and edits Wikipedia seemingly), I guess that makes us all historians. No source for such a claim, and no independent non-trivial sources either. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not necessarily a vanity article (appears to have been started by another editor), but clearly not notable per Wikipedia:Notability (people). Also subject to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest issues as the subject has edited this article as User:Talessman. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While it may not have been started by the subject, the unsubstantiated claims about him being a historian which he insists on retaining in the article make it so in my opinion. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Besides being a userpage masquerading as an article, this one shows NO evidence of notability as required by the guidelines such as WP:N and WP:BIO. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails BIO completely. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. Nakon 22:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - completely fails notability. Macy's123 ^{(review me)} 22:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete How can we have any kind of meaningful article with no sources to verify any facts with. That's before we look at the self-promotion and notability issues. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Self-referential, self-approving, non-notable bio without any information about the maps sufficient to decide whether or not they confer notability. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per all above mentioned reason. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unnotable subject, unreliable and unencylopedic information in article. Mathsci (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Article is not a "userpage masquerading as a bio", it's a legitimate article that I didn't write, referring to me and my activities. And I've been told by local reporters that the article was checked while they were doing research on me. The article covers some of my political activities, I added the parts about my work with history, since it's relevant to Wikipedia. Those saying it "fails notability" or is "self-referential" need to provide actual proof, not make baseless accusations. Thomas Lessman (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Editor is the subject of the article, WP:COI applies. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment1 ONE editor (me) is a subject of the article; other editors have done their own work to the page, and as was already pointed out, I did not create the article, I only corrected some inaccuracies and added the parts about my historical activities that ARE relevant to my work on Wikipedia.
• Comment2 As for claims that this article doesn't fit guidelines for "notable people", I read those guidelines, and there are several articles or parts of books that have sections about me in them. I can provide those again (first time I did so they were deleted by someone else). Thomas Lessman (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Talessman, "proof" (through Wikipedia:Reliable sources) must be provided for something to be kept in the encyclopedia, not for it to be removed. There are no "baseless accusations" here; comments are made strictly upon the content of the article as it now reads. Please don't take this AfD discussion as a personal attack on you or your credibility. It is only a discussion about whether this particular article, as now written, falls within our established policies and guidelines for inclusion in the encylopedia. Short comments such as "not notable" simply mean that another editor, hopefully familiar with the guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (people), has looked at the article and judged that it fails those criteria. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well Andrwsc, if the article can be improved, it should be improved, not deleted. It is relevant to keeping it up because it has been used by news sources to reference information about the subject. Just because I happen to be the focus of that subject means nothing - the edits are minor, only meant to improve inaccuracies like where I am, and the chronology of my activities. You and Hackney say it needs "sources", which it HAD until someone deleted them as "not relevant" - even though they verified and provided information you said it needed. If you are truly concerned about what you say, then help me re-add that information, instead of wasting time arguing to delete the article. Thomas Lessman (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was the last version of the page before the editors you cite above began editing the article: [1] You can see here that the seven "sources" are:

• Your own personal self-published webpage
• Your own Wikipedia user page
• Your own personal, self-published blog
• A subpage of your own personal self-published webpage advertising a business you own
• The webpages of several organizations you belong to that simply prove you belong to them.

In order to be deemed notable, per WP:N and WP:BIO, people who aren't you, and aren't associated with you or businesses or organizations you belong to, need to have written about you extensively. I see no evidence of that. If ANYONE has any evidence of that, then provide it here, and you will see the delete votes change sides quite quickly. As yet, I have seen no evidence that there are any reliable, extensive, and independent sources that discuss Thomas Lessman in any detail... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I found three sources, and cast my recommendation as weak keep. See below. TableManners^C·U·T 05:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already begun adding the requested references. Some of them link to information on my personal website (especially for requested citations needed for statements like me being a Libertarian my whole life - it's on my website). Some of these link to articles referencing the statements (like the results of the 2004 and 2008 elections). If I can find links to the published articles about me or my activities in magazines (like in BSI International, In Search Of Fatherhood, etc), I'll post those as well. It will come in time, do not delete the article. Thomas Lessman (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The edits made by Talessman are not minor. Here is where he added the laughable claim that he is a historian because he drew a few maps, and here and here are where he edit warred to retain the hilarious claim. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per notability. Marlith ^T/C 02:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: does anyone know how to bring the "FOUL PLAY?" comment, below, back into this section. The editor who posted it goofed and now it's its own section, meaning it can't be replied to, does not register as being part of the Lessman discussion, and it's messing up the fomatting of the page in general. Thanks. 23skidoo (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  It's been moved to the talk page. Nakon 03:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now that is a fast response - thanks! 23skidoo (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No claim to notability, COI problems, etc. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Weak Keep I've found four five six reliable sources to establish notability as a political candidate and activist. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Though it is certainly debatable per WP:BIO. TableManners^C·U·T 05:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment None of those are non-trivial, and he's still fails WP:BIO for politicians by a mile. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Yes, I was just reading that and changed my recommendation from keep to weak keep. I think two of them are non-trivial (voting habits and illegal immigration.) TableManners^C·U·T 05:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not really, unless you're planning to write an article about things he's said... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't appreciate the tone. I am just trying to help out here, with sources, and by improving the article. I have found six sources. Please read them, and comment appropriately. I am not sure if this person is notable or not per WP guidelines, but he is certainly more notable than I am. I understand that the article might get deleted anyway, but don't blame me for giving the article a fair shake. TableManners^C·U·T 06:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to get defensive. I have carefully reviewed the sources provided. They all refer to the subject in the context of electoral knockabout and none of them provide in-depth coverage of him in a way that would meet the criteria for the notability guideline. None of the coverage appears to be beyond the local press and the subject does not appear to have been elected to anything. Failed candidates for state office are not notable in themselves and the sources provided do not otherwise provide an independant existance that is adequately documented to allow an article to be sources from them. So, in short, we don't need this article. (Note that I have alreay expressed an opinion up top}. Your research is appreciated but unfortunately we don't have emough to keep this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, vanity, notability not established. Mention at Million Dads March Network if notable to that. Just being notable to some notable topic doesn't automatically translate to sufficient notability for a dedicated bio article. As a compromise redirect to Million Dads March Network. If he is elected to some political office or something, reconsider. --dab (𒁳) 09:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- 221 votes out of >10,000 cast: the subject of this article is not notable. --A. B. ^(talk) 13:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment: The Million Dads March Network article has also been a problematic article and Mr. Lessman insists on restoring this attack image to the article: Image:Bullock the Hutt 01-2004.jpg. This organization generates zero hits in a Google News Archive search. That article's creator, RexJudicata, also created Parents Without Rights and was eventually blocked indefinitely for POV-pushing and making death threats. A RexJudicata sockpuppet, Agwiii created Mr. Lessman's article. Another sockpuppet, Cia123454321, edited the Lessman article and created Grayson Walker, Jamil Jabar and Peter T. Wilson articles. --A. B. ^(talk) 13:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that Talessman (based in Kansas) is definitely not another RexJudicata sockpuppet nor is he 66.176.106.94, the Florida-based IP making edits similar to RexJudicata.^[8] --A. B. ^(talk) 16:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not, we know exactly who Rex is, as Rex he never tried to hide his real life identity or ___location. Rex clearly was Cia123454321, Thomas clearly is somebody completely different and we must not judge him as an editor based on Rex's actions. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to make an argument based on policy? Is he notable? Can you help us to verify this using reliable sources? Off topic rants about why you hate Wikipedia are not helpful to the discussion. --Onorem♠Dil 15:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest just leaving 66.176.106.94's comment in place. It gives a good sample of the RexJudicata-type edits that have permeated this cluster of articles at various times. --A. B. ^(talk) 15:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment This is clearly a post by an indefinitely blocked user, ie RexJudicata (to name the main account) and while I wont remopve it either I would urge the closing admin to ignore this vote. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not planning on removing this one. At least it offers an opinion on this particular article this time. The original version, which I also probably wouldn't have removed a second time myself, was just an anti-wiki rant. --Onorem♠Dil 15:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. I kept links to the earlier versions (first part of item D) --A. B. ^(talk) 15:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete or edit what was a legitimate complaint, relevant to this conversation, just because you didn't like the point made by the person making the complaint? Being pro-Wiki or anti-Wiki has no relevance to whether an article should be deleted. And funny, that's the point he was making about wiki-bullies. I also read the info about wiki-stalkers, and it applies as well. You definitely should not be editing another editor's comments just because you don't like what it said. Thomas Lessman (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His original edit was not relevant to this conversation. "Being pro-Wiki or anti-Wiki has no relevance to whether an article should be deleted." - Exactly the reason why his comment was removed. It had nothing to do with this discussion. --Onorem♠Dil 16:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looked relevant enough to me. I've already raised the alarm that this whole charade is nothing more than an episode of wiki-bullying, started by a wiki-stalker, who obviously is just fishing for trouble. Seems to me that that is exactly what the anonymous poster was defining, and it should be taken into account when considering this article for deletion. Does the article really NEED to be deleted, or is it one that can be improved? Wiki-bullies never give the chance to prove or fix articles, they just delete them. Wiki-stalkers then go on a rampage and start attacking every article or contribution by their target. Seems to me the demand to delete this article was started for that exact reason, because someone didn't like my contributions. No compromise will work for him, even when trying to satisfy the criteria he put in place (citations? not good enough. Got more? Still not good enough).

Thus you had no business editing his original edits. Seems a few of the people arguing vehemently FOR deletion seem to have trolled out against other similar articles. Seems they have a problem more with the subjects at hand, or maybe they don't like the issues and are attacking articles that speak about the issues. In any case, there is FAR more going on here now than just an article that needs work. The people demanding it the loudest happen to be wiki-bullying their way through and deleting several articles that should be kept. Thomas Lessman (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • OK enough. Please stick to commenting on the edits and not the editor. Simply, if you want to argue against deletion you need to read our policy on verification and guideline on biography notability and then explain how the article can be changed to meet these. All the delete arguments are based on policy and custom here and attacking users for this isn't acceptable. The truth is, this article came to notice because you were edit warring over maps you created, broke the three revert rule and generally created enough disruption to cause users to look at your editing. If you want to fly under the rader you have to avoid making noise and you failed to do this. I realise that this episode must be upsetting for you but I'm afraid that you have been the author of your own misfortune and our patience for the disruption you are causing is now close to the end. Please, as I asked above, try and confine yourself to discussing edits and not editors. And I also want to record that I do not believe there is any merit to the suggestion that you are a sockpuppet. Thank you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Talessman, whatever problems other than notability your article may have can get fixed; that's not really what this AfD is about. The problem that many here see is that there has not been enough coverage of you in reliable sources as required by our very specific guidelines on notability. This applies regardless of whether some editors like you or dislike you. Heck, Adolf Hitler has an article and nobody likes him; my kindegarten teacher was beloved but she has no article. Most people don't qualify for articles. I've had more coverage than you and I don't qualify for an article. A good closing admin will see through any POV comments here and make a decision on the article based on facts and our rules. That means he or she will probably focus most on TableManners' comments and look at the depth of coverage in the sources he cited. Everything else here will be viewed mainly for a sense of what the community consensus is about those sources. He or she will not really care who Thomas Lessman is or what he advocates. Future solid mainstream press coverage will get you a new article here in the future even if this first one gets deleted. Trust me, when you become the first Libertarian governor in America, it'll be a big article. --17:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. B. (talk • contribs)

• Delete Non Notable. BigDunc (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Userify or delete User page masquarading as a bio. PouponOnToast (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete while continuing to assume good faith on the part of all involved. I just don't see anything in the article that qualifies as a real claim to notability, and I'm especially inclusionist when it comes to politicians. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO, WP:V, etc. I would also like to remind the subject of the article to assume good faith...I'm a little disturbed by all the accusations he is throwing out. --Smashville^BONK! 17:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- see also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Million Dads March Network --A. B. ^(talk) 19:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - see also: the talk page for this project section about Wiki-Bullying and stalking, and Talk:Million_Dads_March_Network section on Protect Article, [9].

• Delete No specific detail whatsoever and does not have any interesting facts.--Pookeo9 (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Actually, I would like to see Mr. Lessman given some sort of citizenship award for putting up with the silliness here. Notable? He's certainly more notable than any of these critics. That does create a consensus of notablity. I've read the silly things written by ab, squakbox and others. There should be some wikistuff here about and by people who have lives, but i find little. After reading some things here, and on Lessman's site, I contacted SR Ann Mah (sp?). As a member of the Kansas legislature, SHE considers Lessman notable. I think that's much more than can be said for these self-style editors and wikis. I'm shocked to see the articles on Stephen Baskerville deleted! Same for Gregory Romeu. I think the article on Lessmand and the MDM are must reading in today's times. I also read the "father's rights" piece. The most amazing thing there was the absence of people's names. It's a secret, anonymous movement. However, it suffers from the same political correctness as Mr. Lessman - conservativism versus leftist-socialism. If Thomas were a Marxist instead of a Libertarian, there would be no discussion about keeping or deleting. However, since he's a Libertarian American, he's doomed on this site. Amazing. Absolutely amazing. — 65.12.222.200 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Is he certainly more notable than any of these critics? Probably. And you say that a member of the Kansas legislature...considers Lessman notable. All very good! Unfortunately, both those points are utterly irrelevant. Wikipedia:Notability (people) is what matters here. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Evidence has been presented to show this article DOES fit the wiki-guidelines for Notability, and more is on the way. You keep ignoring some of the evidence, and dismissing other evidence as "not important enough". Another editor was going as far as arbitrarily deleting and sabatoging efforts to add citations he demanded. There is definitely more going on here than some of these editors are letting on. Thomas Lessman (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is this evidence? I've just looked up through the entire AfD...I don't see anything. --Smashville^BONK! 02:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP:COMMENT: I see nothing wrong with this page. Lessman obviously has SOMETHING to offer this world if he is willing to stand up FOR the MEN of this Country who are under fire by all the Femininsts, UltraExtremist Liberals and Socialists who are trying to destroy Men and ther ability to raise their own kids. Fathers are treated today like the Jews were in the 40's..Keep up the GOOD work, and hopefully, the psychos out there who have no clue about the CSE Gestapos will take some time to better educate themselves.$$$governthyself$$$ (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC) this user (contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[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.