Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Lessman: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:41, 24 January 2008

Thomas Lessman

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's 123 ^{(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]
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]

Pure wiki-bully bull. Thomas, the more the wiki-bullies do, the more they prove their critics to be right. Their favorite slur is the sockpuppet, but of course, they lack the technical ability to distinguish one user from another when they are on the same computer. Instead of deleting the Thomas Lessman and MDM article, I suggest deleting wikipedia.

http://pyropus.ca/personal/writings/wikipedia.html http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/18/wikipedia_quality_problem/ http://arstechnica.com/staff/palatine.ars/2005/10/20/1580