Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Lupo Sinclair


 * 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 was '''delete. . – Will''' (message me!) 08:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Andrea Lupo Sinclair
This article MUST NOT be deleted. It was placed there by a member of the historical fencing community, is referenced by members thereof, and is linked to several other articles. If there are any grounds for deletion at all, it is that this page has become a political quagmire. It should instead be locked. This "mob editorial" policy is the reason why academics such as myself refuse to allow Wikipedia as any sort of reputable source.

-Ken Mondschein

A non-notable fencer who, excluding a few mirrors, only has around 200+ exact hits on Google, and whose page was started by an IP user. Even more pitiful, it's been there since [ last September]... And there we go—one of so many reasons why this Wikipedia has only recently given registered users the power to create new pages. --Slgr @ ndson (page - messages - contribs) 13:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment it would be interesting to know the exact names of those who are so continuously attacking this well respected Maestro. He has been teaching to almost all researchers in the USA and America, but some (few of them, but very aggressive on the Net) have started to mob him since he clearly espressed some disagreement with them. Non one can offer REAl certification of Mastership in Tradition of Fencing. But his skill is repeatedly confirmed by several great personalities such as Maestro Ramon Martinez, who stated that he (Andrea) "clearly teaches what is the real tradition of fencing".

Fact: Andrea Lupo Sinclair has been teaching to almost all the students and researchers of Historical Fencing in the USA and Europe. Removing the article about him should mean that most of many other articles about others should be deleted.

Fact: he has created the biggest Federation for historical Fencing in the world. The standards of the Federation he created are followed and seen as an example from other organisations such as the Spanish Fed and the British one. To me, this is enough to give relevance to Andrea lupo Sinclair here on Wikipedia. [No, this is not correct. ARMA is the largest historical fencing federation in the world, and it can be easily verified.]

Fact: Andrea Lupo Sinclair has founded the IMAF that collects some of the most relevant teachers in world. This is another fact of relevance. [How many teachers does IMAF number right now? According to the IMAF website, not more than ten, only a few of whom teach fencing]

Fact: he has been mobbed for three years by some of the very aggressive self promoting "researchers" in the USA because the knowledge of this Maestro was obscuring their own one. [This is debatable, and therefore a non-fact]

Fact: he has been independent from political games, and this can be absolutely proved. That is why some of the big "politicians" in fencing hates him so much, at the point that have no shame in attacking he who has been the only one to create a true independent federation in Italy. [Nobody hates anyone. Again, this is about credentials. These either exist or not.]

Fact: Andrea Lupo Sinclair still travels in the USA but not at the same events of other researchers or so called ones. All the IMAF has decided to change a bit its policy of public presence. But it is deeply unfair to use this as an evidence of other issues. [And this is from someone uninterested in politics. Ah.]

Others informations could be given by Maestro Ramon Martinez. Arzach 2


 * Delete this also appears to be an attack page. Almost all the content is to question Mr. Sinclair's credentials. --DarkAudit 18:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have reverted to the version as of July 11, which is free of personal attacks, per WP:LIVING. It is badly in need of sources, though. Kimchi.sg 19:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Gentlemen; this individual has a worrisome propensity for free-wheeling claims that he invariably can't back up. Just take a cursory look at his bio page on his website. There's no mention of how he obtained his title. One would think that would be the first thing a Fencing Master would mention, no? But he surely "attended the best high-school," "designed the best blade" and taught "most researchers and fencers in Europe and the US." Right. A passing mention to the HUGE controversy this guy's created around his name by spouting off these enormities (which is why he no longer shows his face at general US fencing events) has to be included, or else Wiki is just a vehicle for unchecked self-promotion. A personal attack would be: he's a fraud. An objective statement, instead: critics say he hasn't produced his credentials, which is what the overwhelming majority of historical fencers in the US are asking themselves. If you think this latest version is imperfect, please let me know and I'll be glad to tone it down further or add any reference you consider appropriate. Cheers. Nuages2000.
 * All of this user's edits have been to this article, its talk page, and this page. Kimchi.sg 04:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Cheers. Trunk 18:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * User's 12th edit. Kimchi.sg 04:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I was not able to find any information published by "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (per WP:V) that would validate notability under WP:BIO.  If anyone finds differently, please provide links. --Satori Son 20:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment  Mr. Mondschein, there is no mob editorial. Questioning the credentials of someone who claims them is not a personal attack. Questioning the motives of those who pose such a simple question, on the other hand, is. As for locking an entry, well. So I can post an entry calling myself the father of contemporary Psychology, and as soon as someone asks for my credentials, I'd have one of my minions cry for the entry to be locked? Not deleted, mind you, but locked? And then cry wolf about Wikipedia's lack of academic credibility?

That's a bit too convenient, don't you think? So let's each of us put up some romanticized fiction about ourselves, lock the entries when somebody raises some predictable questions, and cast aspersions on those meanies who do the asking.

So, for the 1000th time: where's this great Maestro's official certificate? If this cannot be produced, where's the "notability" about this individual, as someone keeps asking? Again, let's all put up a higly embellished page about ourselves. Go Wiki!

(Nuages 2000)


 * 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.