Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Edward Lincoln


 * 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. Consensus is that the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Charles Edward Lincoln

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not meet WP:BIO. --Weazie (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The subject of the article has no notability, and notoriety for various reasons that would violate WP:BLP if included do not establish notability. Additionally, the article appears to be a vanity page created by an obscure ex-academic with no significant work and, for that matter, no work whatsoever in about 20 years. Muldrake (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please be mindful of comments like this in AFD. Referring to articles about living people as "vanity" is inappropriate because these discussions are commonly read both by the subjects themselves and newsprint publications. Also, that the person's accomplishments are not significant enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia says little about their significance within their discipline. causa sui (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A search of Google Scholar and other resources under variants of the name Charles Lincoln fails to demonstrate citability or reliance upon his work by people in his field or elsewhere. Muldrake (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If the subject is indeed considered "significan[t] within [his] discipline," that fact alone, if properly documented by reliable sources, might provide sufficient evidence of notability. However, if it can also be reliably documented that he is in fact the former attorney who has been the subject of much notoriety, that information would also be relevant for inclusion. -- 74.78.32.56 (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A Charles Lincoln once assisted Orly Taitz. There is some circumstantial evidence that the subject of this wikipedia article was the person who assisted Taitz.  But there is no WP:RS to support WP:BIO or WP:PROF in either regard.  --Weazie (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't think he passes WP:PROF for his academic activities. While I found enough reliable sources to verify some of his legal troubles and his activity in the birther movement (and also to verify that the birther/disbarred lawyer Charles Lincoln really is the same as the anthropologist Charles Lincoln), I didn't find enough to convince me that he is notable for those things. And given the huge number of lurid and highly unreliable sources out there for him, I think this article is a bit of a magnet for BLP problems as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I agree with David on all counts. -- 74.78.32.56 (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

This thing is horribly insulting, saying I haven't worked in 20 years---I have worked very hard for the rights of all Americans over the past twenty years. I am Charles Edward Lincoln, III, and I can assure you that I did not write this article. This article doesn't contain even list half of my publications in archaeology (including not even one of my publications in the Boletin de la Escuela de Ciencias Antropologicas de la Universidad de Yucatan or "Hidden in the Hills" at the University of Bonn, BRD). This article doesn't mention that at age 22-23, I received permits from the Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia to work at Chichen Itza and Major Archaeological Sites in Yucatan which had been "closed" to Americans when I was 23, that my permits were renewed by the Mexican National Institute of Anthropology & History several times 1982-1987, and this article doesn't describe the detailed mapping or building and platform typology developed by my archaeological work at Chichen Itza, Izamal, or Xkichmook or Cansahcab in Yucatan. I offer no opinion about whether I am or my work might be "significant" or "notable" enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. But I left archaeology because I was concerned for the state of Freedom and the Rule of Law and Equity in the World, and I am and shall always remain a Civil Rights Activist and Constitutionalist---both as a Licensed Attorney and Afterwards---and I deeply resent the notion that I am only notable for my "activity in the birther" movement. I never cared about Obama's birthplace-eligibility, but I always disliked Obama's socialism. I joined with Orly Taitz only because I was impressed with her apparent patriotic spirit. But she was incompetent. My contributions only involve strict advocacy of the rule of law and adherence to the letter of the Constitution. But my "notable" activism began when I filed the original Complaint in Atwater v. Lago Vista (one of Seven Civil RIghts cases filed against my hometown of Lago Vista, Texas, while I was a licensed attorney in Texas) in 1997---that case made it to the United States Supreme Court and we only lost by a 5-4 vote with a stirring dissent by Sandra Day O'Connor. That was ONLY the beginning of my Civil Rights Activism. Judges James R. Nowlin and Sam Sparks set out to disbar and generally discredit me as a result of my activism against Police Abuse and Civil Rights Violations in Central Texas. Judge Nowlin once said in open court that anyone who could bring evidence leading to my disbarment would be "in the eternal debt" of the Court. Since 2003 I have worked continuously for the reform of the Family Courts in Texas, Florida, and now in California. I drafted a Petition for Writ of Certiorari on behalf of Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson to the Supreme Court this year (Lawson v. Lawson, 10-1159) which raised the inconsistencies in Civil Rights Laws between the 1960s and today with regard to "race-based" standing to assert certain claims. I have been fighting against the Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud LONG before "Occupy Wall Street"---and my work is substantive not merely symbolic. I camp out in law libraries writing briefs, including a case regarding the intersection of Civil Rights and Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud 8:09-cv-01072-DOC-E pending before Judge David O. Carter in Santa Ana, California, for two years now. I have been "ahead of the times" in both archaeology and law. I suggest that a review of my work will show that my legal research is always sound and never faddish or flaky or "movement oriented." I am NOT a "Birther" in any sense---I am merely a "Constitutionalist" and "Anti-Socialist Civil Rights Activist" in every possible sense. I could provide a long list of the cases I have filed, but I have mentioned (1) my work against Judge Michael Jergins in Williamson County, Texas, and against the Family Courts in Texas, for which I have been sanctioned a total of $200,000.00 ($50,000.00 to suppress my activities in State Court, $150,000.00 to suppress my activities in Federal Court---in a case where I was neither a party nor a witness), (2) my work with Dr. Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, including the aforementioned Petition for Writ of Certiorari, cited by its Supreme Court Petition number 10-1159 (3) my work in California against Non-Judicial Foreclosures and Summary Judicial Evictions, especially regarding the intersection of Civil RIghts and Constitutional with the California Commercial Code and California Civil Codes. I have given occasional Seminars and spoken on Talk Radio Programs from Time-to-Time. Those who write the editorial comments for Wikipedia appear to have a very limited view of my work and my writings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mephistopheles 1660 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 29 October 2011‎ (UTC)
 * You've had a very interesting and respectable life, Mr. Lincoln. I apologize for the harsh words in this discussion, some folks forget how public these discussions are and the line sometimes blurs between discussing the subject of an article and discussing a living breathing person with feelings.--v/r - TP 15:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Once one researches Mr. Lincoln's statement above, he makes a very convincing argument that the entry should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kreisman (talk • contribs) 14:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. Calicocat (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable unless one is into bad comedy. CEL3 is a known "birther", alleged (by him) lover of Orly Taitz, a self-centered fabulist and a failed purveyor of Mortgage Redemtion scams. He's all about self promotion. His current claims should be considered with the same jaundiced eye as all his other outrageous claims. Estiveo (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2011 (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.