This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Captainbarrett (talk | contribs) at 17:17, 13 February 2007 (re jarbarf). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:17, 13 February 2007 by Captainbarrett (talk | contribs) (re jarbarf)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Ebony Anpu
- The initial AfD with the original nominator's comments concerning veracity of the sources and notability may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ebony Anpu, first try.
Okay folks, revisiting this AfD I have decided to reset it. Bare with me here. There were procedural concerns with the initial drafting of this AfD, namely that an Anon initiated it. However, the anon and or anons that started it have valid points, but such points have been lost by the fact that there has been use of proxies, and actual discussion about the merits of the article has been lost amongst folks disagreeing with the legitimacy of the AfD. So I am restarting the AfD, period. I have no opinion on the article, but here are the issues addressed by the anons, and I feel that they are valid reasons to initiate an AfD...
- The individual is non-notable. See this Google Search, for instance.
- There are serious concerns with the veracity of the references used in the article.
With that out of the way, the discussion in this AfD will remain limited to the whether or not the article's claims meet our standards set up for proper references, and whether or not the subject of the article meets our criteria for inclusion. Procedural brouhaha shall remain on the talk page of the AfD only. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- No Vote For the record. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Dirty Tricks
- Keep= See (Old AfD). What is going on here? This is really silly. So the page is created. A few hours later an anonymous user sends the page to AfD as their _first_ Edit. While I am honestly working to gather sources and justify this guys inclusion, more anonymous users with No Edit History play havoc with his page. There is vandalism, reports of copy-vio, and all manner of general harrassment, for no stated reason. I spend more time undoing the vandalism than contributing (See Old AfD). Finally and experiened editor with over 5000 edits (Adrian) notes what is happening and removes the article from AfD in keeping with Wiki Consensus (See old AfD). That is reversed by an anonymous user with no Edit History, for no reason I can see, and we are back at AfD. Anonymous vandalism continues and finally the site has to be semi-protected by admins because of all the abuse by users with no edit history. Now, the site is just about to come off of AfD (and judging by the old AfD talk page it was going to_stay_ with flying colors) an Jeffrey flippantly decides to keep it as AfD, also for no good reason. Apparently Jefferey thinks that anon users with No Edit History are more valuable to the wiki process than real contributors. I do not understand your thinking at all Jefferey. And though you asserted that you're "not acting as a Proxy," I question your judgement and reasoning here. Captain Barrett 16:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Also the "No Vote" portion of Jefferey's statement on this page is totally thrown out the window based on his comments. This is manipulative and sneaky. If you are going to write statements which indicate you do not approve of his page, at least be _honest_ about it. Captain Barrett 17:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- No vote from me either for right now, but I think Jeffrey did the right thing by refreshing this discussion. Should this page be protected too, to prevent more of the same antics? (jarbarf) 17:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- _Sigh_ yeah, it would probably be a good idea. Good Looking out. Captain Barrett 17:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)