User talk:Dreaded Walrus/Archives/December 2009

Dan Pena site
I posed a general question on the articles talk page but saw then that that talk page is not for a general discussion of the subject. So where would I put such a discussion and can I remove it from the talk page? Pena is editing with several usernames meanwhile and lets sourced facts disappear. --Esinclair52 (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What WP:FORUM is for is to prevent people from using talk pages to talk about the subject of the article rather than the article itself. As examples, "who here likes Pokémon?" or "How do I get past this bit on Pokémon?" would be the kind of things that aren't welcome, as they don't help improve the article. I'd say that your recent post to the talk page is probably borderline. It contains a lot of non-WP-related stuff, but also uses it as framework to suggest he's not noteworthy.
 * If you truly do think he is not notable, feel free to take it to WP:AFD. An IP editor added a deletion notice overnight, but IP editors are unable to create pages (which would include the deletion discussion page), so I reverted the addition. If you do want to take it to AfD but need help, feel free to ask. Dreaded Walrus t c 11:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. I'm not sure what I think: when I started the research, I thought he was notable because of his achievements. But it turned out that there is no proof for any of the claimed achievements but a whole lot of shady dealings, lawsuits against him etc. - I put them in and sourced them properly, only to find probably Pena himself delete the edits shortly thereafter and put in unsourced claims. If the site is not deleted, then at least the properly researched sections should stay in... Are you saying I should take it to AfD and it would go through this time? Something is clearly wrong with this guy's story and the fact that WP is contributing to him selling products and seminars based on a story that is at least partly not true, I do not find amusing. --Esinclair52 (talk) 12:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what the outcome of any deletion discussion would be, as that is formed by consensus. All I'd say is that even if the article is kept, there'd be more people keeping their eye on the article, which is good for me as it's way too much for me to keep track of and keep my eye on. There appears to be a whole lot of conflict of interest and single-purpose accounts editing on both sides of the debate, and from what it looks like both sides seem to be taking the article too far one way or the other. I think even if you don't end up taking it to AfD again I'll probably file a notice on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard anyway, as like I say it's probably a bit too much for me to handle almost singlehandedly. Dreaded Walrus t c 12:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Somebody else put up the article for deletion. But there is no room for discussion now. Is that different from an AfD? Still I'm not sure if it should be deleted or not. The sources are all correct, on the other hand, for the claims are no sources to be found... so what is the solution here? --Esinclair52 (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * He used the proposed deletion method. Basically all this means is if noone raises an objection for any reason (by removing that template) within seven days, an admin will come along and delete it at the end of that seven day period. Of course, if you disagree with it being deleted, feel free to remove the article. If you agree the article should be deleted, but for different reasons to what he does, then.. well, probably best to just be quiet and leave the template up. :) Dreaded Walrus t c 17:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I put up the prod tag but was taken down since it has already gone through AFD. I've added my input to the deletion section in the talk page. How can we continue with the deletion process? Cablespy (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You should follow the steps at WP:AFDHOWTO. If you need any help with those steps, feel free to ask. Dreaded Walrus t c 12:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you think that the site no displays what is really going on? He could not buy better advertising with not displaying a word about this (sourced) controversies. I don't get how anybody can just delete sourced content and say it's not important... is that the quality of WP content? --Esinclair52 (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's about undue weight. However, if you'd like to discuss the article's content, I'd suggest the best place to do it would be on Talk:Daniel S. Peña, Sr.. If you would like to know the reason it was removed (outside of brief edit summaries), then look here for an explanation given by the person who has done the edits you disagree with. Finally, if you would like more of an explanation or to dispute the edits made to the article with the person himself, then here is his talk page. Dreaded Walrus t c 22:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Daaaamn son
Hey man! Good news, I'm back at Wiki. At least, back to wiki'ing. How's things?-CamT undefined 00:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Not bad! Nice to see you back on WP! :) Dreaded Walrus t c 18:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)