Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Beckwith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Alan Beckwith was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete.

Probably autobiography. Doesn't meet Wikipedia:Criteria_for_Inclusion_of_Biographies. He might have an Imdb entry, but non of the credits are noteable. -- Solipsist 10:36, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable, possible vanity. Gwalla | Talk 02:08, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Everyone and their dog is a member of the Screen Actor's Guild. -TheFed 05:56, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. No reason to delete. anthony (see warning) 14:54, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Minor appearences on TV only. Average Earthman 01:06, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia's policy should be upheld. Known by all in several fields. User: Mia State 08:08, 01 Sept 2004 (UTC)
    • Hello Mia, that's a nice sock puppet. How do you get the lips to move so realistically. But you are quite right Wikipedia's policy should be upheld - as per Wikipedia:Criteria_for_Inclusion_of_Biographies. -- Solipsist 19:21, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Who do you think this is a sockpuppet of? And when did Criteria_for_Inclusion_of_Biographies become policy? And which part of it do you think applies? anthony (see warning) 19:47, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • I would suspect a puppet of the originator of the article User: And you are quite right, I hadn't noticed that Criteria_for_Inclusion_of_Biographies is only a proposed policy, never-the-less this article would fail on:
            1. Well known entertainment figures
            2. Painters, ... engineers... whose work is recognized as exceptional (twice)
            3. Wikipedia:Auto-biography (most likely)
            4. 100 year test
            5. Informative
          Is that enough? -- Solipsist 11:39, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • No, it isn't good enough. Criteria for Inclusion of Biographies is an inclusive list. You don't have to fall under every category, only one. And as you've now noticed, it's not policy, in part because it's not complete (there are a large number of people with consensus for inclusion who fit under none of the categories. anthony (see warning) 12:13, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
            • So which one would you use for inclusion? -- Solipsist 12:45, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • Well known entertainment figure is one possibility. anthony (see warning) 19:29, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Good question! I noticed that this Solispit guy posted ony a few minutes after my vote. He better not be accusing me of being a sockpuppet!!! I've been wrongly accused of being one once before and I DONT LIKE IT!!!!! Pitchka 22:44, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
          • There are well defined criteria for determining a sock puppet, largely based on examining a user's contribution history. User:Pitchka looks nothing like a sock puppet on this issue, but User: Mia State does. -- Solipsist 11:39, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Doesn't the originator of the article get a vote? Mia State created this account months ago, and a logged in user is not a sockpuppet of an IP address. If anything, the IP would be a sockpuppet of the logged in user. But the IP didn't vote. The only way this accusation makes any sense is if you're claiming the user is a sockpuppet of me or Pitchka, and I can tell you for a fact the user isn't a sockpuppet of me. "A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who posts under more than one name." So I ask again, what is the other name you are alleging this user posts under. Not IP address, name. anthony (see warning) 12:08, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • delete not notable. Dunc_Harris| 18:08, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • KEEP. I think this is a valid entry. If we delete this guy because he is "minor" then there are an awful lot of people and metal bands that should be removed as well. I did an internet search and he has a lot of listings. He has also done stage work which means IMDB would not include these works. Pitchka 19:17, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • keepVagrant 21:02, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Inadequate evidence of notability. (Yes, I did read the referenced listings.) Note to Pitchka - every nomination is evaluated on its own merits. If there are others, we deal with them as they come up. Rossami 22:53, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not sufficiently notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:28, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • KEEP. Valid. Accomplishments speaks for themselves. He's leaving the world a better place than he found it. Wikipedia benefits in its endeavor for the entry. (I know your intentions are well meaning) but you're creating alot of cyber-dust in bickering on this listing. Keep it and let's go on. User: Mia State 10:03, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Franky I don't understand why you guys are so virulent against this listing. I think that he is noteworthy he has a hell of a lot more credentuals than I do and from what I've seen a few thousand other people already listed in the encyclopedia! I really don't understand what the problem is outside of some bizzare personal dislike by the person who started this whole kangroo court! Could it be jealousy? Pitchka 17:23, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Now listed on VfU, as it was deleted against Wikipedia policy. anthony (see warning) 18:55, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nonsense. Wikipedia policy is to discount the votes of sockpuppets. Consensus of real voters was to delete. RickK 19:10, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

  • Which votes are you claiming to be votes of sockpuppets? And what are you defining as consensus? anthony (see warning) 20:08, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • KEEP. Thanks for reconsidering. For those who want to delete, consider

that when you start to chip away at the many facets that makes Wikipedia a gem - that gem will soon lose its lustre. It's a valid entry. User: Mia State 17:10, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.