Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brunnock


 * 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. (aeropa gitica) 21:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Brunnock
Smear article by a sockpuppet Sean Brunnock 20:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This article was created by User:AndyAndyAndy using the sockpuppet User:Dannyfloyd to smear my name. See Suspected sock puppets/AndyAndyAndy and Requests for checkuser/Case/AndyAndyAndy. Both accounts have been blocked for sockpuppetry. --Sean Brunnock 20:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per nom. Nom makes strong claims that the article's author was being malicious, and these claims check out quite well. My Alt Account 21:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong speedy delete. Because the nominator makes a good argument for malice (as My Alt Account notes), no one other than Dannyfloyd has made a substantive contribution to the article, the article has no references, and I can find none on google, this is a CSD A6. Pan Dan 00:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Perhaps Sean's being a bit too sensitive. Unless there's something we don't know, AFAICT, it doesn't look like an attack page, and cannot as such be speedied as such. You might be able to invoke the delete for creation by banned user, if he was indeed banned. However, I vote to delete per WP:HOAX/WP:V for want of available information on the sujbect. Ohconfucius 09:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. (see my changed vote below Jdclevenger 01:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)) My first vote ever for a delete and I am a bit torn. As Ohconfucius might attest, I am a strong proponent of inclusion in Wikipedia. Reading the discussion page on the article, it seems that Brunnock and Dannyfloyd had a perfectly civil exchange about providing substantiation. I think preserving regionalisms is an important mission and this could well fall within that concept. I am particulary sensitve to the idea that not all verification need come from Google. After all, 'Wikipedia is not Google' suggests that we be open to non-gogglable evidence. For those of you who did research in the B.G. (before google) age you know that this can take time. So I wonder what percipitated this action.

On the other hand, I think claims of malice deserve a strong response and should be accorded the benefit of the doubt. My Alt Account stated that the Nom 'makes a good argument for malice.' Am I missing something? I mean this quite sincerely. Is there a link with further evidence and a fuller claim? Please point it out to me. All I have seen is the the claim at the top of this page. It asserts malice and asserts sockpuppetry. I will gladly change my vote to Strong Speedy Delete if Sean Brunnock can point to a more concrete reason why User:Dannyfloyd is out to smear him. Perhaps he has and I am just missing it.

On the final hand, I would change my vote to a Weak Keep on the basis of a good faith claim by someone that this has some basis in scottish fokelore, although I would prefer that the actual citation be provided.Jdclevenger 04:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Why don't you look at User:Dannyfloyd, Suspected sock puppets/AndyAndyAndy and Requests for checkuser/Case/AndyAndyAndy? There's no assertion of sockpuppetry. It's a proven fact. And I think I know where my surname comes from and what it means. --Sean Brunnock 11:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Reply to Jdclevenger's comment about Google. If "Brunnock" was really a notable mythological being from Scottish folklore, instead of something somebody just made up recently, it would certainly be found on Google.  By comparison, I found each of the following terms from Scottish folklore easily on Google: Aos-sídhe, Sìdhichean, and Tuatha Dé Danann.  But when I paired each of these terms with "Brunnock," I found no meaningful results (there was a total of one result, which used Brunnock as a county name).  I think, in this case, that absence of evidence really is evidence of absence.  And by the way, I also looked in Lexis, with no results.  Pan Dan 13:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Reply to Sean Brunnock. My apologies. You did offer proof about the sockpupperty. While presumably this makes User:Dannyfloyd, a Wiki-badguy, it does not itself support your claim of malice (which as I mentioned before I am inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt). The heart of my comment on switching to a strong delete is motive. Do you have reason to believe that User:Dannyfloyd is doing this specifically against you? Perhaps I misconstrued the claim, "...smear my name." I took this to assert that the smear is against you personally. To fully support such a charge, I think information about possible motive would help. But perhaps what you meant was that the attack was litterally against your surname, but not directed against you yourself. Jdclevenger 17:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You're not reading the relevant articles. If you read Suspected sock puppets/AndyAndyAndy, I provided the motive. By the way, User:Dannyfloyd does not exist. He's a sockpuppet. User:AndyAndyAndy is the puppetmaster. --Sean Brunnock 21:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Reply to Pan Dan. Thank you for the additional research. But I am prepared to believe that there remain pockets of information about the world that have not yet been googlized or indeed put on the net. The probability of this being the case for scottish fokelore is quite low of course, and presumably much lower than for regions such as, e.g. the Amazon, outer China, or central Africa although no doubt this is rapidally changing. Is this probability low enough to cast doubt on the article? Of course. But if there were not a charge of malice, my inclination would still be a week keep, at least for a "sufficent" period time to provide some kind of citation. My basic epistemolgoical constitution is such that I will always be highly skeptical of claims that absence of evidence is ever evidence of absence. Saddly, I will have to become less skeptical of such claims as the coverage of the net nears totality. It is an interesting side question about how one measures both the sum of verifiable human knowledge and the percentage of that on the net.Jdclevenger 17:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete My thanks to Sean Brunnock for pointing me to the proper links. I'm afraid I was a bit dense. Jdclevenger 01:39, 10 September 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.