Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Archived articles for deletion discussions/2004 June 1

< Wikipedia:Archived articles for deletion discussions
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Archived delete debates/June 1)

Archived deletion debates from June 1, 2004

William Guzzardi

edit

I stumbled on this earlier today soon after it was posted. I put it up as a speedy delete, but the little so-and-so who posted it did a naughty and reverted the edit. So, I thought I would bring this incredible piece of vanity to your attention. Can we speedy delete, or shall we just let this stew for five days? - Lucky 6.9 03:09, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why, god, why? Delete this before his ego develops an event horizon. Meelar 03:18, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite his lack of luck both in cards and in love, he is socially functional, occasionally even leaving his house on weekends to see friends." Heh. Delete (sooner or later). Niteowlneils 03:55, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ye gads the people who write these pages could at least have the gall to make up something decent and noteworthy about themselves. I really don't want to know the finer details of the failing of a teenager's love life... Delete -- Graham  :) | Talk 10:07, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure of his own date of death. Delete. Dunc Harris | Talk 12:52, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • And see His weblog for a copy of his biography "From Wikipedia the free encylopedia", and his note go to this site for a good bio of me, written by me. some douchebag... [that would be User:Lucky 6.9 ...tried to get it deleted, so i'm gonna reproduce it here in case he succeeds. read his friggin bio. what a DOUCHEBAG. So does Lucky 6.9 have a vanity page he's not telling us about?
    • Not any of which I happen to be aware...Someone here actually tried writing an article about me based on my experience in local radio, but I asked for it to be removed. - Lucky 6.9 22:04, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sad. Very sad. But wikipedia is not therapy. Delete. DJ Clayworth 13:29, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Amusing ramblings and rants from an 18 yr old kid, but such things are what really what blogs are for and have no place in an encyclopedia. Pyramidal 14:11, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • LOL! Now there's some egomaniacal little kid calling me a douchebag, eh? I've been called worse. I wonder what he'll think of all the other comments posted here about his cute little bio. - Lucky 6.9 16:27, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. The person probably misunderstood what Wikipedia is. Andris 22:13, May 26, 2004 (UTC)
I continue to feel that it is not made clear to new users that vanity pages are unacceptable, nor is it made clear that pages can be deleted as well as edited. You read Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page or go through the whole Wikipedia:Tutorial without learning either of these things. Dpbsmith 23:29, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I have added an initial attempt to overcome this shortcoming in the Tutorial (Tutorial (Keep in mind)). It may be a bit heavy-handed, but I think it's a reasonable start, and gives links to both WIWO, and What Wikipedia is not. Hopefully the text can be made clearer/fairer without getting much longer--the page is already pretty big for the tutorial. Niteowlneils 19:11, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. The writing is good and in encyclopedic style. I really wish he hadn't decided to engage in name-calling and reversion of VfD notices, as this behavior makes it difficult to be sincere in offering him encouragement. Dpbsmith 23:01, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi guys. I'd like to make a quick point. This is William Guzzardi, by the way. The biographical page on your website was set up by a friend of mine by way of a sort of gift to me. I know it's strange, and I know it's not what Wikipedia is intended for. In fact, the only reason the page was posted was because this friend of mine knows how much respect I have for this website. I have in the past edited several articles as well as contributing a large amount of research to articles in the field of cryptography. I perfectly understand your wishes to delete it, and in fact hope you do. The "reversion of VfD notices" I know nothing about, except to say that the friend who set up the page for me also said he deleted some sort of "deletion notice" that was in my article. For this I apologize. As far as accusing me of name-calling, I find it hard for this body of administrators who has called me "egomaniacal" and described my ego as bordering on an "event horizon", as well as the simple claim of "sad", to stake any claim to being above name-calling. And as for Lucky 6.9, whose pampered California lifestyle seems to have allowed this middle-aged man the ability to enjoy power trips based on insulting people who live thousands of miles away, I apologize for any insult, and my irritation has of late been transformed into pity.
In short, please delete the page, for the integrity of this awesome research tool. However, I'd appreciate it if my very high opinion of this very site was not lowered any further by insults hurled at me by its administrators.
Yours truly and humbly, William Guzzardi. 21:52, 26 May 2004 (EST)
William, I understand your annoyance at the comments. On the other hand, if you look at the rest of this page, you'll see there's a never-ending torrent of worthless articles. The people who deal with cleaning out the clutter get a little brusque at times, and don't stop to ask whether a vanity page was self-vanity or a friend. Cut them some slack, OK? By the way, I agree with Dpbsmith that the article is well-written. Tell your friend that, if he's gotten the hijinks out of his system, he could make a real contribution here should he choose to do so. Oh, and I vote Delete. JamesMLane 04:28, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pampered California lifestyle? Mr. Guzzardi, I work hard for a living. I'm anything but pampered, and I won't burden you with the details. Please don't make assumptions. As for my claim of "egomaniacal," try reading that article your well-meaning friend wrote from a neutral point of view. Regarding insults, it was you who decided to call me a "douchebag" on your blog page after you reverted the vote to delete. Furthermore, I'm not an administrator, only a user. Anyone can vote to delete an article, anyone can change one and Lord knows I've seen a lot of garbage pass through here in the few months I've been playing around on this site. And, anyone can write one. I've written several, which means I don't simply hang around here and vote to delete anything that comes down the pike. If you and your friend wish to make a meaningful contribution to this site now that you understand it better, consider yourselves welcome with open arms. - Lucky 6.9 16:13, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

White nationalist FAQ

edit

It was deleted 20 minutes after a move from another article. It was source text at the time, not a candidate for speedy deletion. I suggest waiting a couple of days before voting to see whether the rewrite it needs happens - it really needs cleanup instead of here but undeletion policy requires this listing. Jamesday 01:45, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; reconsider in a month if it's still source text after being given more than 20 minutes for followup editing. Jamesday 01:45, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, the VFD debate page seems to have been redirected, making it impossible to contribute to the debate, so I will discuss it here. No, do not wait 30 days, wait the requisite VfD time, then see if it deserves deleting. RickK 02:28, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This isn't an article -- it's propaganda and an apologia for racism and white supremacism. -- BCorr|Брайен 03:04, May 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • You didn't read it carefully. they try do distance themselves from racists and supremacists. A much more subtle thing; only anti-Semitism stciks out. Mikkalai 06:16, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did read it carefully, Mikkalai. That's why I specified it's an apologia rather than a defense. Subtle, but it's still advocacy and propaganda, and it's making a distinction without a difference. -- BCorr|Брайен 01:37, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • While very few here are likely to agree with the view, it is a view we should describe somewhere - I don't much care where but views which seem daft to me and still have many followers do merit coverage. Worth remembering here that some separatists do legitimately believe that they are different from supremacists and do not necessarily agree with things like genocide. (shrug) Personally I think both are harmful movements but that's just my POV. Jamesday 18:38, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One must know basic arguments of any political movement. Mikkalai 06:16, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article isn't a description of their political views. It advocates a specific idealogy. Delete it or at the very least heavily revise to eliminate all POV. MK 06:41, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having now read the "white nationalism" article others have mentioned, I see it already contains any possible NPOV information that might be extracted from the FAQ. So there's no reason not to delete it. MK 15:38, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a FAQ repository. And isn't User:Paul Vogel banned for one year, and thus his highly POV white supremacist stuff thus qualified for speedy deletion? andy 08:04, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain for the moment to see if the article improves. Above all though this should be cleaned up rather than deleted as it is a description of a political viewpoint, however badly written. -- Graham  :) | Talk 10:03, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Disgusting racist nonsense. white nationalism already has a page, if anything merge any new info, but this is wrong. Dunc Harris | Talk 12:07, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a FAQ repository, it is a copyright violation from a neo-Nazi newspaper and website ([http://www.stormfront.org/whitenat.htm 1]), masking racism in neutral language does not hide the fact that it is racism, and therefore essentially POV. Wikipedia should not be turned into a pocium for hate groups masquerading their ideology as NPOV. David Duke in a business suit is no less David Duke in a bedsheet. Danny 12:48, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are so many reasons to delete this. 1) No article should have FAQ in the title 2) It's massively POV 3) If it really is copyvio, stick a notice on it and let's get it out of here. If there is already a white nationalism then there is no reason for this article. DJ Clayworth 13:10, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Horrible, racist POV. At the very least, it isn't even an encyclopedia article. This site can do far worse than to give this pile the death it so richly deserves. - Lucky 6.9 17:36, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there's anything valuable in this article, merge it with White nationalism. Other than that, delete asap. blankfaze | &#9835 18:01, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Racist and unencyclopaedic. — Chameleon 22:39, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • You guys with two main objections (racist and POV) totally miss the point. The purpose of the article is exactly what it is: to present a racist POV. Your attitude is exactly like in my best Stalinism times: in the books we used to read that this and that philosopher or economist was "borgeois lackey", but we had no chance to know why exactly he was that kind of lackey. There is POV and POV about POV. From the viewpoint of encyclopedia, for this article to be POVved means to say something like: "what they say is 100% true", "what they say is supported by majority of Americans". But there is absolutely no dispute as to the topic: they say EXACTLY what is written. Of course, this silly Q&A format is to be gone, but if you delete this one, articles about fascism must go as well. Mikkalai 00:45, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to White nationalism in US and cleanup. They sound badly racist but, if this movement is sufficiently popular, Wikipedia should inform that they exist and what their views are. That's the same principle as in the quackery debate a few items lower on Vfd. FAQ format should be removed, needs massive NPOV. Andris 01:33, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • I remain unconvinced by Mikkalai's argument. Between the two, White supremacy and White nationalism provide the information needed, and we don't need to "present a racist POV" in order to avoid some sort of Stalinist censorship. And this doesn't represent "White nationalism in US" versus simple White nationalism. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 01:37, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • I proposed "White nationalism in US" since I thought that some aspects in these movements might be country-specific. The article we are discussing mentions America quite a lot. But that a minor distinction and merging relevant information into White nationalism would be fine as well. Andris 02:23, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • Careless dismissing of extremists by a couple of labels gave way to Hitler grabbing power. BTW, I am a bit surprised by lack of parallels drawn with "theoretical" apartheid. Can anyone? Mikkalai 02:36, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is possible to discuss a POV subject in a NPOV manner, but this article doesn't do it. If the article said, "there is an ideology called White Nationalism that believes the following..." it would be one thing. But this article says the equivalent of "this is what we believe..." MK 03:59, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether or not this article is POV, IT'S A COPYVIO! Delete. RickK 04:10, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unlikely. Given the purpose of the document it's really hard to infringe its copyright (propaganda = press release = widest possible distribution desired). In any case, it's effectively certain that whatever remains here, in whatever form and wherever it remains, won't be copyright infringement, simply because our NPOV poicy requires a near total rewrite of the document to present the arguments of the movement in a neutral way. Jamesday 18:38, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • You didn't bother to read just above, did you? Well, just in case you didn't, here's the website again: [http://www.stormfront.org/whitenat.htm http://www.stormfront.org/whitenat.htm]. RickK 01:09, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK I rest my case. I just wanted to make sure the decision is not as emotional as it may seem from reading this page. Mikkalai 05:55, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move any usable content into "white nationalism" and delete. As andy said above, this is an encyclopedia and we ought not to have articles with "FAQ" in the title. Rossami 19:20, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apart from FAQ of course ;) or if this FAQ was somehow notable, and notable enough not to be in the FAQ article itself; in which case the article should be about the FAQ and not a straight copy of it. Glad we got that straight ;) Dunc Harris | Talk 21:55, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If someone wants to write an actual article examining the beliefs of people calling themselves "White Nationalists", fine, but somebody's statement of personal views does not belong on Wikipedia. Josh Cherry 20:05, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or at least totally rewrite. This is the view of white nationalism from the POV of a white nationalist - despite its "question and answer" format, it still presents the views as fact. Any content that can be identified as encyclopedic should be distributed to other articles, such as white nationalism. - PlatinumX 06:14, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Archived_articles_for_deletion_discussions/2004_June_1&oldid=1173286251"