Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criss Jami


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Criss Jami

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Doesn't appear notable, fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. A search for sources brings up nothing more substantial than user-generated reviews and pages created by or affiliated with the subject. His books are self-published through Amazon's CreateSpace facility, which should immediately ring alarm bells. There also appears to be a conflict of interest issue with the page's creator, looks a lot like an attempt to use Wikipedia for self-promotion. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 09:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * delete agree with all points TEDickey (talk) 09:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I am closely affiliated with the subject of the article, and I originally created the page. He is indeed a self-published author who, despite being self-published, has developed a devoted fan base who I felt deserved a "go-to source" as to who this guy is: people have enjoyed his books and philosophies, but aren't certain of the guy behind the work that they enjoy (he's introverted (one of his great topics) and often avoids the media). I personally don't believe that being self-published devalues the notability, quality, or integrity of his work. It's just an article, not the end of the world, so delete it if you must (even though I've seen far worse articles, which perplexes me as to why when I look at the History of this article there's a lot of back and forth controversy). I do have a complaint about the Wikipedia community here. There seems to be presuppositions of the integrity and character behind article creations. Anyone who knows anything about his work knows his beliefs regarding fame, money, and personal gain. I can't speak for the rest of the contributors, however the page isn't for promotion nor was it meant to be worded in such a manner. My complaint isn't so much the deletion of any internet article (it's an asinine situation), but rather the hostile vibes towards imperfect contributors. Because Wikipedia isn't "policed" by a neutral, trustworthy staff, but rather everyday contributors, it seems rather easy to overlook/exaggerate certain guidelines out of spite, "clique", etc.


 * This is a neutral vote from the creator of the article.* — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKILLOSOPHER (talk • contribs) 10:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)  — TheKILLOSOPHER (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

On second thought, the creator actually writes a lot like Jami. I can tell because I want to repeat him, "Because Wikipedia isn't 'policed' by a neutral, trustworthy staff, but rather everyday contributors, it seems rather easy to overlook/exaggerate certain guidelines out of spite, 'clique', etc."

Keep Philosophynow789 (talk) 12:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC) — Philosophynow789 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. Fails both the general notability guideline and the specific guideline for authors. I can't find the significant coverage in reliable sources required to demonstrate notability. User:TheKILLOSOPHER is quite correct in stating that self-published authors aren't automatically precluded from having articles, but they (like every other subject) must satisfy the notability requirements, and Criss Jam doesn't. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete — cocomonkilla | talk | contrib 16:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Make a tag about it needing stronger sources, but it doesn't seem desperate for deletion. Give it time.Severelightz (talk) 08:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC) — Severelightz (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * That makes two WP:SPAs who (in addition to the first who appears to be Chriss Jami) who have advocated keeping the topic. The editing history shows that they are closely connected. A WP:CheckUser is probably a good thing, to see how many individuals are conducting the discussion). TEDickey (talk) 09:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Going back to the history, it appears that one created this topic (see WP:Meat puppetry) after consultation with the first (who was unsuccessful in the review), and that the third helped with the process. An AFD really should be conducted by independent individuals, not those who have colluded beforehand to promote the topic TEDickey (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

hmm I have no idea what all that means. I indeed made a Wikipedia account after I heard that Criss Jami now had one. The rumors about this place must be true. I'd prefer editors, not stalkers and attack bots. http://theoks.net/blog/2009/08/27/reblog-why-i-really-hate-wikipedia-administrators/ And I almost want to change my vote because I hardly encourage anyone being a part of a site who so closely monitors users with such opposition. Severelightz (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That link was hilarious, thanks for the laugh! "I edit-warred, made disruptive edits and sockpuppeteered, and those bastard admin nazis blocked me for it!" Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 11:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Why of course it's funny. There's humor in truth, my friend. Severelightz (talk) 11:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Closely connected" TEDickey (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Tedickey just proved my point. People must not be allowed to make an account to support a certain cause, otherwise they're considered a "meatpuppet". At least I can admit why and when I came to the site, I don't deny it. I just think this is silly to be so obsessive. Severelightz (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Your comment is unclear, since the editing record shows that your first edit was about 20 minutes after the topic was created - implying that some form of announcement or other direct communication provided you with "after I heard that Criss Jami now had one". Absent that, another plausible interpretation of your remark might be that you were watching Criss Jami's lack of progress in this, followed by this.  TEDickey (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the new rule: A person should keep their mouth shut after a new page is up. The attack bots will accuse you of site vandalism. As far as I can tell, none of the contributions made were harmful or offensive to anyone or anything. You speak as though the contributors to this article were troublemakers who invaded your home when really you're the only individual escalating something you personally disagree with. If you think the article should be deleted, great! But you evidently have a bigger issue with harmless users than an article. Severelightz (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * On the contrary. The contributors to the topic have been offensive, making accusations, using self-published sources and vague assertions of notability.  That's in the editing history (including your own edits and comments).  The other editors have asked for WP:RS, evidence of WP:Notability, and none have been presented TEDickey (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Being self-published is not a criteria for deletion, but it is a red flag for doing further investigation for notability as it is rare that a self-published author gets significant overage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2012 (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.