Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Seckel


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was speedy keep; bad faith nomination. Mackensen (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Al Seckel
I have checked many of Seckel's claims in the past and have documented evidence that he is extremely dishonest. This evidence includes proof of phony credentials and false financial statements. Because of this, we should not accept his version about himself. I welcome a genuinely neutral entry on Seckel, but this current one is hopelessly biased and is pure self-promotion. Many of the current claims are demonstrably false. By way of disclosure, I worked with Seckel in the 1980s. When I saw how unethical and dishonest he was I criticized this. He then promised to sue me if I criticized him further. Afterwards I obtained documentation from Cornell and Caltech that his claimed credentials with those institutions were lies, and documentation from the State of California that he made false financial statements about his Skeptics group. I also received letters from Prof. Pearce Williams and from Prof. Feynman's secretary showing that he is lying about their relationship. Some of this evidence is included in http://www.phact.org/e/z/klass1.htm, which is listed on the Wikipedia entry for Philip J. Klass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmciver (talk • contribs)
 * Keep Appears to be notable individual. If there are factual problems with the article, AfD is not the way to address them. Fan1967 05:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If he is notable, then someone should write an entry for him. Proven  liars should not write their own entries.  I thought writing one's own entry was clear violation of policy to being with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.20.104.67 (talk • contribs)


 * Speedy Keep This it the ultima thule of bad faith noms. A disagrement doesn't warrant a deletion. Also, the nominator's only edits have been to this AfD. Yanksox 05:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the ultima thule of bad and dishonest entries and a clear violation of stated Wikipedia policy for entries to begin with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.20.104.67 (talk • contribs)
 * There are other ways to express concerns like tags or other tags. A flat out challenge of deletion doesn't make sense for an article that meets WP:BIO. Yanksox 05:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Autobiographies are discouraged, not forbidden. You have not offered any grounds for deletion under Wikipedia rules. Please review them. If You feel that information is incorrect, change it. An article is certainly not going to be deleted based on obvious personal animosity from an anonymous user. Fan1967 05:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I have a number of newspaper citations I have been meaning to add as well. POV and WP:AUTO problems can be addressed without deletion. Thatcher131 05:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * From Wikipedia guidelines: "If you judge an article to be a vanity article, and thus prone to the problems associated with such articles, you should request its deletion." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.20.104.67 (talk • contribs)
 * Fine. So far, we appear to disagree. And please sign your comments by typing four tildes, like this ~ . It creates a time-stamped signature. Thatcher131 06:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. "Vanity article" is typically used in Wikipedia to describe an article (usually self-written) about an individual who is not notable. It doesn't apply here, as Seickel is clearly notable. Fan1967 06:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree we disagree, and that is fine. I don't *disagree* with Seckel's entry, however; I know it is dishonest self-promotion: "...every Wikipedia article is expected to cover its subject in a neutral, fair, and comprehensive way in order to advance knowledge of the subject as a whole. Articles that exist primarily to advance the contributor will likely be deleted." I apologize for lack of tildes: I am brand-new to Wikipedia. 67.20.104.67 06:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The solution to biased articles is more editors, working to eliminate bias. Unless you want to claim that the dozens of publications don;t exist, he is clearly a notable person, worthy of an article. Don't like the article, work on it. I can promise you this nomination will not succeed, and the article won't be deleted. Fan1967 06:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems notable enough for mine and article seems based on reliable sources. Capitalistroadster 06:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable biography and sources seem verifiable. --Ter e nce Ong 07:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep notable enough. Ben W Bell   talk  07:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, content dispute and not article deletion material. The individual appears to be notable. - Motor (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.