Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel C. Boyer

See User talk:Daniel C. Boyer --Daniel C. Boyer 15:02, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete - I haven't seen a good reason to keep vanity pages regardless of who they are. The fact that this was returned by the very person it is about makes it questionable. - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 16:18, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * No vote, but if you would bother to read any of the stuff you are ignoring, whether or not this is a vanity page has been a subject of some dispute. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:08, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the dispute. I am also aware that it is you reintroducing the article. - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 20:18, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * And I can only conclude, due to your repeated, repeated ignoring everything I say, that you are disingenuously saying this. You deleted the redirect due to a facetious interpretation of the rules and continue to ignore it originally being an article, not something from userspace, and the temporary nature of the compromise.  Clearly the way to have dealt with it, if you wanted to delete the redirect, was to list it on VfD rather than use facetious intepretations to deal with it through speedy deletion.  --Daniel C. Boyer 14:30, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * How long has this "temporary compromise" been in effect? - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 14:34, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. You were free to try to end it at any time by placing Daniel C. Boyer on VfD.  That is what you should have done rather than using speedy deletion.  --Daniel C. Boyer 14:51, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Speedy deletion was used correctly on the redirect. Why are you avoiding the question? - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 15:05, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I have discussed in a great amount of detail why speedy deletion was not correct. The redirect in question had been edited from what was initially an article, not ever being a user page or having the character thereof.  That is enough to show that it does not fall under rule 7.  The compromise seems to have dated back to August 9 at 2:28 a.m. but it seems to have become difficult to tell because the history does not show the same amount of back-and-forthing I remember (perhaps the moves have caused this problem?).  Now please answer my questions.  --Daniel C. Boyer 15:14, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I have answered your question repeatedly and it is in the box below from VfU. The redirect was the result of a move to user space and was deleted.- T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 15:21, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * A temporary compromise move to your user space since August seems due for review and this is a good medium. - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 15:21, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I will agree that it is due for review but this is the proper forum. It should never have gone through speedy deletion.  --Daniel C. Boyer 15:30, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * The proper forum for the redirect was VfU. You did so and withdrew the vote.  The proper forum for the article that you have restored over the deleted redirect is VfD.  And here we are. - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 19:32, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * O.k.; we're fine on this point now. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:01, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Andris 17:26, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Del. --Wik 17:40, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. anthony (see warning) 20:04, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Boyer can keep information about himself on his userpage (that is what it is there for). Boyer wrote this page himself
 * You are knowingly lying. It has been documented ad nauseum that Tim Starling wrote the page.  --Daniel C. Boyer 14:30, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * and it produced endless fights last summer (for those who weren't around). Beyond being vanity,
 * I still question why you describe this as vanity. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:30, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * this page will never be neutral since Boyer will certainly defend himself against anything negative,
 * This is a presumption, nothing more. Show me where I have ever disputed antyhing negative simply because it is negative, not because it is factually inaccurate, something many people seem to play fast and loose with when it comes to subjects they don't like.  Facts, as opposed to presumptions and jumping to conclusions, should be used as the basis for writing articles.  I think that I should be permitted to challenge factually-inaccurate material in the Talk page even with the new Autobiography rules.  --Daniel C. Boyer 14:30, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * and "non fans" will continually add information that Boyer will not like.
 * So what? The point isn't whether I like it; a lot of encyclopedia articles here and elsewhere, I'll wager, have material in them that the subject wouldn't like.  I'll say right now that the issue isn't whether the material in Daniel C. Boyer will be flattering to me, the issue is whether it's true (a lot of material added by people who have had no other aim than to serve as my detractors has been flat-out false), significant and relevant.  Edit away.  I'll also wager, however, that you will duck this just as you've repeatedly ducked so many questions and requests for clarification on my part.  --Daniel C. Boyer 14:30, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * (Also, although different wikipedias certainly have different policies, the french wikipedia long ago deleted Boyer's page there.)
 * It is objectively true that the French wikipedia broke its own rules in order to delete the french Daniel C. Boyer page. Research this and you will see that this is true.  So I don't think this is a good justification.  --Daniel C. Boyer 14:30, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Maximus Rex 20:18, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. The page is uninformative,
 * I mainly agree. However, this is an argument for heavy editing, rather than for deletion.  I have repeatedly stated that my main activities have been in visual art rather than in publication and this has been just as repeatedly totally ignored.  It's as if we wrote an article on Winston Churchill and focussed on his painting.  We could argue that the page was uninformative and irrelevant and we'd be right, but should the page then be deleted?  --Daniel C. Boyer 14:30, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * and much of the material is difficult to verify. Moreover, Boyer has previously added misleading information about himself on at least two occasions,
 * Please give cites rather than make these unsupported allegations. And I'd like to hear what you have to say, on the other hand, about those who have added flatly false material to the article on me.  --Daniel C. Boyer 14:30, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * and the effort required of other editors in fact-checking his autobiographical contributions is better invested elsewhere.
 * But my understanding is there won't be any further contributions as the new Autobiography policy countermands this in the article space. Furthermore, is your argument that the laziness of the editors should be used as a standard?  --Daniel C. Boyer 14:30, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * [User:UninvitedCompany|UninvitedCompany]] 21:19, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Redelete. I've copied the discussion from Votes for undeletion below as Anthony and Daniel kept trying to remove it. Angela. 22:20, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * I think this is the best way to deal with it though, moving the discussion here. I'm sorry if by removing it (the discussion) caused difficuties; it was just that since I was removing my request for undeletion, I was going to remove Daniel C. Boyer from the VfU page.  --Daniel C. Boyer 14:30, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * This page was never deleted in the first place. anthony (see warning) 22:26, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Content can go on a user page. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:23, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have removed de-headinged two lines just below (inside the box), at least one of which is causing edits to be mislocated. --Jerzy(t) 02:37, 2004 Apr 9 (UTC)

--Daniel C. Boyer 13:03, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC) Regardless, I think it is evident that he is looking to wikipedia as a means for self-promotion&mdash;based on Mr. Boyer's own comments here, the extent to which he has edited the article about himself, and his other edits that have spread his name to other articles (check his contribution history). While he is certainly free to spread his name on as many free artist websites that will let him, a site that is supposed to be an objective academic project is not the appropriate place for that. Postdlf 4:06 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless it can be written from scratch by someone other than Boyer. Brockert 23:48, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * I would be more than happy to have this done (pointing out, however, that the original article was written by Tim Starling, as has been extensively documented). Would you like to give it a go?  --Daniel C. Boyer 14:30, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Documented where? It seems to be written entirely in first person, as of here, and the changelog is revealing in its Boyerness. No, I wouldn't want to re-write it, since I've never heard of you. Based on the plethora of votes for deletion, nobody else has either. --Brockert 23:26, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Someone else can put it back up once the kid is no longer merely an "aspiring" artist.  We all aspire to lots of things.  Articles should be limited to what people actually are and what they did.  Otherwise, I want my own article, too.  Postdlf 12:29  9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * The flurry of defence of article-Daniel_C._Boyer by user-Daniel_C._Boyer supports the assertion made on this page that he will not allow any criticism of the article should it be allowed to remain - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 14:34, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * You have got to be kidding me. This is a garbled and nonsensical (how am I going to prevent any criticism of -- what? the existence of the article? the material in the article?  [I think I've criticized that enough]) assertion.  And what are you using it to support?  That we should not have articles on any individual who we think might criticise their existence or their content?  If imposed this standard would destroy any pretence to NPOV that Wikipedia has (articles should be free to exist or not exist and any arguments for or against them by their subjects should be taken on their own merit, nothing more) as it would prevent the existence, or colour the content, of articles either to defy, or mollify, cantankerous subjects.  --Daniel C. Boyer 14:51, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I think it is a sign that aside from one unelaborated "keep", the whole defense for keeping this article has come from its subject. If Mr. Boyer wished truly wished to be objective about this, he'd wait for others to rise to the article's defense rather than an risking an appearance of blatant self-promotion that is unseemly for an academic project such as wikipedia.  One more comment: I don't think the proper way to debate this is through private e-mails to users (anyone else know what I'm talking about?).  The discussion should be kept within this space rather than shifting into private appeals.  I'm not changing my vote for deletion.  Postdlf 19:23 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * So not only shouldn't I point out the questionable objective accuracy of describing me as "aspiring" privately, so as not to appear involved in self-promotion, but I shouldn't make it publicly, so I can maintain an aura of "objectivity" while others are hardly constrained not to edit things which are certainly at least subjectively POV and questionable? --Daniel C. Boyer 17:37, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * And I think that trying to point out factual inaccuracies in an article about oneself, inaccuracies one would be in a position to know about, cannot be conflated with self-promotion. If people are interpreting my arguments as a defense of the article per se or an attempt to skew it to make it more flattering to me, they are misinterpreting, perhaps deliberately, what I am doing.  And if people other than myself are exhibiting a lack of objectivity by knowingly violating usual procedures and facetiously arguing for procedures they have employed for no other reason than anti-Boyer POV, what would be the proper way to proceed?  --Daniel C. Boyer 15:05, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * So if (as an extreme example to make a point) Saddam Hussein had access to the article about him we should allow him to be the final word on all edits since he is the only one who could be factual, impartial, and accurate about his own history and actions? I think not - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 16:39, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * No! This is a straw man!  I never argued that I had the right to the final word on all edits on the article about me, and what is more, I think that you are not supposed to, any longer, edit an article about oneself at all (given that it is in the article space, which Daniel C. Boyer is, at least for the moment).  I do not have the right to the final word on edits, certainly, as I'm not going to be making any edits to Daniel C. Boyer at all!  All I'm saying is that if something in the article is inaccurate or POV I'm going to point it out, probably in the Talk:Daniel C. Boyer page, and then it will be up to others to make, or not make, the edits.  The Saddam Hussein example is an extreme distortion of my position.  --Daniel C. Boyer 17:37, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Hence the disclaimer "(as an extreme example to make a point) " to make it clear to the reader that it is making a point and not an "extreme distortion" of your position. If Saddam Hussein were here pushing to have an article of  him restored I would take his words with the same amount of salt I take yours (in this matter).- T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 19:26, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Bait and switch. Your first concern was about my editing an article about myself, now your concern is my objections here, objections you persistently misrepresent.  I wish to state that I am not casting any vote or recommending that the article be kept.  I am just arguing that whatever is said either here or at the article (if it continues to exist) should be factually accurate.  --Daniel C. Boyer 13:06, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * This isn't about having an article restored. It's about whether or not to delete an article.  So in other words you would vote to delete the Saddam Hussein article as a vanity page. anthony (see warning) 19:45, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * If Saddam Hussein restores an article about him that was removed and then fights vigorously to keep it then I think it is his vanity driving the restoration against both the initial push to remove it and this second objection to its restoral. - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 21:22, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * You have just fatally undercut your own point in several ways. I am not fighting vigourously to keep it; I will express once again that I am not casting any vote on this or recommending that it be kept.  I am only saying that if it is deleted it should be for reasons that bear some relationship to facts (and such arguments could certainly be made, and even be well made) rather than factually-inaccurate bases, and that if the article is kept, that it should not contain factual inaccuracies or highly questionable claims such as the word "aspiring".  And regardless of Hussein's motives in driving to keep the article, I think it is almost unarguable that in that case the article should be kept, and in any case, that the article should be dealt with regardless of Hussein's actions, or the perceived motives behind such actions.  --Daniel C. Boyer 15:46, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * You're obviously too personally invested in this&mdash;no, I don't think you should have a role in arguing publicly or privately why an article about you should be kept.
 * You are deliberately misrepresenting what I said. I never argued the article should be kept.  I just argued that it was questionable to describe me as "aspiring"; the thing to get from this would be, obviously, is that were the article to be kept, this might be reconsidered.  --Daniel C. Boyer 13:03, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I am accurately representing what I say.
 * Note that you do not deny misrepresenting what I have said. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:23, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I am allowed to have more than one concern and can agree with others who have concerns that I don't present. The many responses you give prove that you would make managing such an article impossible because of your involvement. - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 13:09, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * You have totally failed to support your conclusion, and what are you saying earlier -- if you have concerns (shared by others) why don't you just say that you have them? --Daniel C. Boyer 14:32, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * And if "inaccuracies" about you in the article (which is where "aspiring" came from) cannot be corrected without your input, apparently there is not information about you "out there", which also speaks to the lack of value in keeping the article. Googling you, I couldn't find anything that you hadn't posted yourself, or that wasn't just a representation of wikipedia content. --Postdlf
 * Well, if these are the results you're getting from Google, you have mistyped, or you are simply a liar. Because there is certainly a lot of information on Google on me I haven't posted myself.  I am going to give examples:
 * The Death Mask of Justin Timberlake (posted by Digital Souls)
 * Response to "An Inquiry About Time" (posted by Zazie)
 * OCAD listing for Boyer, Daniel C. (OCAD)
 * At Upland Trout (Upland Trout)
 * Featured Artist in Snow Monkey magazine (Ravenna Press)
 * The Open Scroll Directoy of Authors
 * Biography in German by P.S. Rabel
 * The Collapsed Horizon {(mixed media work) at . Gallery}
 * 1000 Voices (FacingFaces)
 * Featured Artist at The Bathtub Art Museum (Carye Bye at Bathtub Art Museum)
 * Review of "Buffalo Gal" font in Fine Art Online
 * Stencil in Independent Arts Festival, Belgium
 * Torch Art
 * On news@sigg3.net
 * Letter to the editor, Stanford magazine, March-April 2004
 * Calendar listing in Keweenawnow.com for September-October solo exhibition at Turquoise Gallery, Hancock, Michigan
 * Listing in VOIR.CA - Montreal - Arts Visuels - Calendrier for show at Galerie Gora, June 8-23, 2001
 * Listing for same show at Hour.ca Visual Arts
 * Listing on CBC Radio Canada guide
 * Participant in "Postcards from the Edge" Visual AIDS show at Galerie Lelong, New York
 * Review of Surrealist Subversions mentioning me
 * Participant in the IV International Salon and Colloquium of Digital Art, Havana, Cuba
 * Review of my now-defunct website in Exquisite Corpse - A Journal of Letters and Life
 * Discussion at news@sigg3.net
 * Work in Seattle Art Museum
 * Mention at Surrealcoconut.com (Contemporary surrealism and the surrealist movement)
 * poem "Potassium" at Periodic Table of Poetry
 * Participant in The Stencil Show
 * Participant in exhibit Grafia y Creatividad in Spain
 * Author of article "Are You Crazy? Mental Illness & Whiteness" in Race Traitor No. 9 (Summer 1998)
 * Participant in Picasso e-book project
 * The Collapsed Horizon included in Icarus exhibition "Roll, Pitch and Yaw," 2001
 * Stencil in "The Art of Negative Spaces" show, The Crucible Steel Gallery, CELLSPACE, San Francisco
 * Response to inquiry "The Shrinking Theatre" in New York Arts Magazine on "new surrealism"
 * Signatory on Tyree Guyton statement in Race Traitor
 * Contributor to Surrealist Subversions anthology
 * Article in Romanian magazine Observator Cultural mentioning me
 * Entopic graphomanias in 7th International Annual of Miniature Art, Artaddiction Gallery, Stockholm
 * The Knight and the Damosel and We Say the Wine in Minnesota Museum of Digital Arts
 * So you can see the extent of inaccuracy. Furthermore, if you are stating that research should be so confined, you are just proving my often-stated worry about Wikipedia just becoming a regurgitation of Google.
 * Delete. But would make a good user page. Jacob1207 23:00, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity. This stuff belongs on the user page. Only defence is coming from subject. Ambivalenthysteria 00:34, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * The fact that the article was added by its subject is reason enough to delete. If you really are famous, someone else will write an article. DJ Clayworth 14:09, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * The article was not added by its subject. It was added by Tim Starling, as has been extensively documented.  See, for example: Talk:Daniel_C._Boyer/Auto-biography. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:24, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * This article was reintroduced as an article by its subject. - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 18:05, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Give me a cite...? --Daniel C. Boyer 18:09, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 09:54, 8 Apr 2004 (hist) User:Daniel C. Boyer/temp (moved to "Daniel_C._Boyer") (New)  - This was done to recreate the article outside of your own userspace when you failed to gain a concensus to undelete the redirect - This can be found in your user contributions - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 18:32, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Move the content to the user page. MK 16:28, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * This is going to be my last comment here, because I'm a little tired of beating this oh so dead horse
 * What you mean by "beating a dead horse" is "failing to address the issue at all."
 * , but I wanted to first of all say it's a little rude to break up other people's comments and votes (as above) so you can't even tell who wrote what lines originally.
 * If you look at the indents it is not difficult in the slightest to figure it out. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:27, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Second, re: Mr. Boyer's attempt, by listing many links, to contravert the "aspiring artist" line found in his article and quoted by me...while I didn't go through every one of his links, what I did sample from your list pretty much proved my point and confirmed my earlier search. With one exception, everything I saw was on sites that either allow users to post profiles directly, or at least exclusively post unsolicited submissions, which in either case means Mr. Boyer was responsible for the content being there.  At least one link (billed as "Work in Seattle Art Museum") didn't even have anything on him at all except his (?) name in a search list without any content.  Perhaps someone else can take the time to really see what's there, but I really don't think it's enough to make the case.  I've had art professors with work in the permanent collections of museums who I don't even think merit entries.  If webzines and group shows were enough, everyone with a BFA would have their own article.


 * The list of links are not intended to have anything to do with whether or not I am an "aspiring" artist; they are to refute your claim that "Googling you, I couldn't find anything that you hadn't posted yourself, or that wasn't just a representation of wikipedia content". I have done this just about within an inch of its life.  Thereupon, you shifted your claim to "everything I saw was on sites that either allow users to post profiles directly, or at least exclusively post unsolicited submissions", though you admitted to "one exception".  However, this new claim was made on the admitted basis of only examining some of my examples.  Am I justified in feeling annoyed when someone who talks about "an objective academic project" and then takes such a casual approach to checking sources?  Am I justified in point out that anyone who will actually look at the links will immediately see that in many of them I did not generate the content?  I think there should be fairness in the approach to all articles in Wikipedia, even Daniel C. Boyer.  --Daniel C. Boyer 20:27, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Should we include the votes from the Talk:Daniel C. Boyer/vote page? There was a vote in progress there but it never seemed to come to a conclusion. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:47, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * This is not that vote. But feel free to direct those people to vote here. - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 12:44, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:58, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Del. Vanity. --Jerzy(t) 19:52, 2004 Apr 13 (UTC)
 * Delete: vanity/self-promotion, although borderline: I strongly agree with Postdlf's second comment above. &mdash;No-One Jones 11:35, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Deleted on April 16, 2004 - concensus to delete '

Moved here from Talk:Daniel C. Boyer/vote:

Anyone may add or change their "vote" at any time...

"Vote"
Actual votes (Done by people for themselves)

Categories:
 * Unsure
 * Keep
 * "Severe rewrite or delete" (mix of views under this header)
 * Delete

Delete

 * 1) My vote -delete - Kat 17:52, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)
 * 2) delete --Zundark 19:24, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)
 * 3) delete - Hephaestos 19:50, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)
 * 4) Delete --Menchi 03:54, Jul 31, 2003 (UTC)
 * 5) Delete - not enough verifiable data.&mdash;Eloquence 23:04, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC)
 * 6) delete - MB
 * 7) Frecklefoot - delete
 * 8) Delete. --Wik 23:32, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
 * 9) delete  -- Daniel Quinlan
 * 10) Delete.  This content belongs in the User namespace.  quux 19:55, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * 11) Delete. --Robert Merkel 08:12, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * 12) Delete. -- Imran 11:22, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * 13) Delete. -- But we need a policy with some guidelines making a standard. Rednblu 16:48, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * 14) Delete. --  Agree with Rednblu.  A policy on this is going to necessary in the future. SpeakerFTD 18:00, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * 15) Delete. (or move to userspace.) -- Wikipedia should not be an advertising vehicle for obscure and relatively unknown individuals to self-promote. If anyone (except his publishing company) had heard of this guy, perhaps it would be different; but as it is he appears to be attempting to self-aggrandize and legitimitize his own unknown work as that of a "serious artiste" by putting himself into an encyclopedia. Oh, yes, and there definately should be some sort of policy about this. Kwertii 20:01, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Severe rewrite or delete

 * 1) Edit á la User:GWO, move to user namespace, or delete. -- Viajero 10:26, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * 2) GWO - keep, but leave in little doubt to readers that Boyer is an extremely obscure figure, and that his invented techniques and vanity-published books are neither important or influential in the artworld.  If Boyer insists that these assessment are insufficiently neutral, delete.
 * 3) Koyaanis Qatsi - I like GWO's idea above. (though with the noted complaint that it's shamefully immodest to write an article about oneself when all one has done is vanity publish a few books,  that doing so opens oneself to a flood of criticism that a vain person is unlikely to accept, and that furthermore I doubt Boyer is or will be especially noteworthy)
 * 4) Kosebamse - either rewrite totally to make it short, concise, NPOV and free of Boyer's contributions, or else delete. What's more important is to achieve a universally accepted policy to disallow vanity pages disguised as articles. Kosebamse 18:56, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
 * 5) Severe rewrite (returning to something similar to Tim's original article) or else delete. Jwrosenzweig 18:29, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
 * 6) I agree with GWO, although I wouldn't have put it as harshly. I was unaware of the mass of inappropriate links (such as links from the "Year in Film" pages) and redirects; these should be removed. -- Stephen Gilbert 01:27, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * 7) I would keep open the possibility of an eventual deletion. In the mean time the article should be extremely concise. What I do feel very strongly about is that this kind of thing should not be decided by FPTP (or even majority) voting. Well, at least I dislike the idea profoundly. We need a standard that can be a guide to decisions like this later as well. Having to repeat a heavy process like this every time someone makes a page about themselves in wikipedia is untenable. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 09:55, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)

Keep

 * 1) Keep. -- Jake 04:10, 2003 Jul 31 (UTC)
 * 2) Keep. 172 08:55, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC) there are plenty of obscure entries on Wiki; this is just receiving attention because he's a user. That's what makes it a unique sourcebook. (comment moved to end)
 * 3) Martin - keep
 * 4) Keep - Derek Ross
 * 5) Keep, wikipedia is not paper. I believe that Boyer is a real person, doing real artwork cf., , ,  -- and also Boyers own page, ) -- the problem is the  obscurity, not the non-factuality. And that is only a problem if the article is massive linked and/or if spce is severly limited. -- till we *) 23:53, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC) (discussion moved to end)
 * 6) Keep Tim Starling 09:32, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)
 * 7) Keep; this article is OK and his works should be noted here but there should not be individual articles on his works. mav 10:12, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * 8) Keep sannse 10:44, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * 9) Keep FearÉIREANN 16:13, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * 10) keep Camembert (I tend to agree with 172 and mav)
 * 11) Keep NetEsq 19:31, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * 12) I don't think I need to say "Keep" here, given the unambiguous heading... Oh, damn, I just did. Oliver P.
 * 13) Keep. Infrogmation 00:44, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Mixed views

 * 1) Angela is back to being unsure. My change of vote previously was a kneejerk reaction to the creation of the (now at Talk:Daniel C. Boyer/Katherine Jacobson) page. My biggest worry if the page is kept is that it sets a precedent for future auto-biographic pages. It's not so much the Boyer page I object to but huge number of useless redirects and links related to him. If there was a category for don't care about the main one, but get rid of all the sub-articles, I would vote in that.


 * The following articles currently link to the article on Boyer: Surrealist Subversions, and Carl Benjamin Boyer.
 * There are also lots of talk pages, and the redirects (currently on VfD). I don't know how I can fix the links from talk pages... I could go move discussion here, I guess, but people might get narked... :-/ Martin
 * I was including things like tailgating spinster and octopus frets when I said I wanted sub articles deleted, even though they are currently redirects. Angela
 * Carl Boyer shouldn't be deleted in any case; he's seems to be just who the article claims, and he's written real books that are sold through normal channels.

Opinions not expressed by vote
Summary of opinions not expressed in "vote" above, but rather in talk pages, mailing lists, etc. (Not listed here by people themselves). Read their exact comments to see what they said:

Keep

 * 1) user:Pizza Puzzle-keep
 * 2) user:The Cunctator - keep
 * 3) user:Wapcaplet - keep (archive 1)
 * 4) user:wshun - keep (archive 2)

Delete

 * 1) 217.85.213.254 - delete (archive 2)

Unclear

 * 1) user:Anthere - delete or keep (it's hard to tell - archive 1)
 * 2) Daniel Boyer - Please do not tally my vote from extrapolations. I do not think it is appropriate for me to vote on this and I would like people to give this "vote" no importance whatsoever. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:34, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Jimbo's opinion
Someone mentioned above that maybe we should ask Jimbo what he thinks. He seems to have responded to the issue here: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-August/005599.html. MB 17:52, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)


 * That link is now dead. I think the correct one is 2003-August/005621.html. Angela. 00:06, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of vote
Tallies were amde as we went along, by various folks - these have been stripped, as generally they weren't kept fully up to date. Tim suggested using ordered lists to make counting easier, which was done.

summarising old opinions?
I have added some missed opinions. I oppose the whole, interpreting other peoples opinions, because it is subjective, and they may change their mind after reading the new information. MB 15:44, Jul 31, 2003 (UTC)

I also think it's a bad idea to summarize any previous discussion and count those as votes. A lot of the facts, discussion, and debate postdate the older discussion. Note that there has been a tremendous shift from a majority of keep "votes" in the archive to more a recent majority of delete votes (which could be attributed to having more information on hand). Daniel Quinlan 07:12, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)

contacting folks who previously gave an opinion
I will try to contact those users who have given their opinion earlier. (Tim Starling)


 * It seems to me that you are taking things to a new level. There have been many opinions given on this topic in other forums, but now you're contacting people who may be more likely to agree with you (who likes to admit they were wrong, after all?).  Daniel Quinlan 00:40, Aug 3, 2003 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, Tim is contacting people who've previously expressed an opinion, regardless of what that opinion is, asking them to express their current opinion for the record, lest those opinions be ignored. That's entirely reasonable, in my opinion. Martin 01:20, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I contacted everyone on the list regardless of their opinion, and gave them the same message regardless of their stated opinion (except Pizza Puzzle). I was aware of the fact that more of those people were in favour of my position than of Daniel Q.'s, that's why it was me doing the legwork rather than Daniel. I still think it was a fair, reasonable action though. Besides, we don't have a policy on campaigning. I don't agree with this kind of behaviour, but it has been tolerated in the past. -- Tim Starling 23:53, Aug 3, 2003 (UTC)

vote from a banned user?
Note that one of these votes is from banned user Lir under his "Pizza Puzzle" alias, and thus shouldn't be counted. (I haven't voted, because I haven't made up my mind.)Vicki Rosenzweig


 * Wikipedia is not a democracy, we do not have one person one vote, and all votes do not count equally. Pizza Puzzle's doesn't count for much... but neither does the vote of an anonymous user (217.85.213.254). Leave them both in, and let people decide for themselves how much or how little weight to attach. Martin 01:20, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I take it that you meant to say that Pizza Puzzle's vote may not count much for you. It's a subjective matter. As you say, we are free to decide for ourselves. -- Oliver P. 00:27, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, Oliver, precisely :) Martin 14:38, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't think the "no banned users can vote" rule is going to be practical to apply because other people on this page may be banned users under other aliases. Angela 01:13, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * There's no such rule. Votes have no official status, except that we choose to grant them. Martin 01:20, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * No, the alias Pizza Puzzle would have to be banned first. --Jiang

Daniel C. Boyer
Daniel C. Boyer - now to be listed in the 2005 edition of Who's Who in America --65.174.34.14 18:22, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * No undelete history for this page. Guanaco 18:24, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Suggested as a Requested article now. --68.188.196.48 20:27, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep deleted
 * Keep deleted - This or a slightly differently named article was voted on VfD and deleted. - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  20:31, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted. Is it still listed on requested articles?  I deleted it a couple of days ago.  RickK 20:47, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted. Do we even accept undeletion nominations from anons?  This should be especially suspect considering how Mr. Boyer himself is a wikipedia user who frequently edited his eponymous article, spread links to it into multiple articles, created articles about his family members, and dragged out the VfD debate into an exhausting morass over his supposed notability as an artist, all while feigning disinterest in whether it was kept.  I wonder how many other people got themselves included in Who's Who by relentlessly spreading their own name over the internet; as the VfD debate revealed, there are innumerable online art sites which take no effort to get mentioned on.  Absent some concrete, non-obscure source of information about Mr. Boyer, undeleting it is just going to make it into a vehicle for self-promotion and a source of futile edit wars again.  It's going to take a pretty strong showing to convince me that including this article would be useful to anyone but Mr. Boyer.  I really believe the anon who nominated this is a sock puppet&mdash;his edits have mirrored Mr. Boyer's contributions, and he apparently tried to create another article on a Boyer relative (only the redirects survive).  Postdlf 22:56, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted. Ignore request from anonymous editor. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:06, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted. Wait until he is listed in Who's Who and then reconsider. Angela. 06:51, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted, for good reasons described above. Andris 08:23, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted until verifiable and then evaluated, including review of WWIA's criteria unless this has been adequately done before, and estimate of fraction of WWIA folks currently meeting our standards. (There have been people in WWIA that i've never heard of and who have no Web mention.) --Jerzy(t) 23:32, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)
 * Though I would agree with this in general, I question whether requiring someone to have a Web mention as a criterion for an article is appropriate. Is Wikipedia just to be a regurgitation of material available on the World Wide Web?  Why are offline sources "lesser"?  --Daniel C. Boyer 20:26, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted. Danny, I don't think you're neutral here. :) - Fennec (&#12399;&#12373;&#12400;&#12367;&#12398;&#12365;&#12388;&#12397;) 18:03, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the point of this is as if you'd bother to read below you'd see that my vote is "no vote" and I note that if I did vote it would be to keep deleted. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:07, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted.   &mdash;  &#12510;&#12452;&#12465;&#12523;   &#8362;  18:45, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted, if nothing more than to discourage Danny and his anonymous alter egos from coming back. You've succeeded in making me care enough to not want you here. I agree with the above comments on WWIA, although there are people with articles here I don't know about either. - UtherSRG 20:12, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted. IIRC, the article was contentious for many reasons, not the least among them the presence of the sort of extensive "neutral advocacy" typified by the discussion below for each edit to the article.  Further, the content inclusion standards have grown gradually tighter, making its proposed retention even less plausible.  I would suggest that any new evidence of notability justifying inclusion should be provided by the anon sponsor before undeletion is seriously considered. uc 21:20, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted. I'd have to research the details to be sure, but I don't trust Who's Who in America as a criterion for notability; I believe they may do a fair amount of paid listings. They claim to have one million listings, which would work out to 1 in 300 residents of the US. Beyond that, no new information provided in support of undeletion. --Michael Snow 22:13, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted, since someone as wholly undistinguished as myself has received junk mail, shilling for by biographical info, in exchange for a purchase of this huge and rapidly-becoming-less-trustworthy tome -- GWO 15:18, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Undelete

Other comments
 * Undelete. I don't know or care who Daniel Boyer is, but Wikipedia needs to stop this deletion fetish before the project self-destructs. There is not, nor can there be, a fixed definition of notable. Wikipedia is dynamic and is an alternative encyclopedia. There is plenty of room in Wikipedia for articles about people who may be notable only within small communities. Arevich 02:02, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * In my opinion UtherSRG's vote should be discounted, as it is admittedly based on prejudice against a person ("This page is about articles, not about people."). --Daniel C. Boyer 20:26, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * You missed the sarcasm. YRTE. - UtherSRG 20:51, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * While I don't know about WWIA in particular, many related "Who's who" volumes will accept sponsored listings for a nominal fee (usually around $100 US). uc 21:20, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * This is true of a some "Who's Who", but not Marquis' Who's Who in America. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:42, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Neutral for the time being. If the previous article was deleted on the grounds that Daniel Boyer was not famous enough, and if he has become more famous in the meantime then IMO the previous VfD debate is irrelevent. theresa knott 20:49, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * No vote, but if I did vote it would be for the article to stay deleted on the simple basis that the history is now gone. Postdlf does hint at an interesting question, however.  Are we to take into account self-promotion, or the extent of self-promotion, by individuals, when considering whether there should be articles about them?  There are a number of fields in which it is of the essence (for fame, money &c.); we could simply note business (it's called advertising), and certainly it is a usual practice for artists (are we to discount the heavy, heavy role that their own self-promotion played in the fame of Salvador Dali, Andy Warhol, &c.?), aspiring actors, &c.  I think Postdlf is setting up an unworkable standard.  We can judge the fame alone of individuals, but discounting the role their own self-promotion played in that fame is going to be difficult, and is going to lead to some obviously ridiculous results.  --Daniel C. Boyer 00:41, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Self-promotion is prima facie evidence for the need to self-promote and thus of non-notability (tho such evidence can be overcome). It is also evidence of a need to examine contrary evidence especially closely, lest further self-promotion be mistaken for recognition. And show us some "obviously ridiculous results" to consider instead of hypothesizing them ... oh, never mind, that's not your job, that's a job for someone with an interest in getting people who belong in WP onto it, not someone interested in self-promotion. --Jerzy(t) 23:32, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)
 * I would agree with only some of this. I don't think self-promotion is necessarily "prima facie evidence for the need to self-promote and thus of non-notability" as such a standard, without any additional subtlety of application, seems to spring from some bizarre conception of purity that is laughably inapplicable to certain fields; it posits, for example, that the painter paints secretly in his studio, hoping that somehow by magic gallery owners will see the virtue of his painting, without him sending out any slides or doing anything else which will ever allow them to know he exists.  That said, self-promotion that can be done immediately by the mere wish of the self-promoter, without any filter (such as an editor, gallery owner, &c.), if unaccompanied by any evidence that people have noticed this self-promotion and it is beginning to shade into recognition or fame for the self-promoter, should obviously be ignored by Wikipedia.  However, if the product of self-promotion is recongition or fame, to ignore that recognition or fame because it is the product of self-promotion is absurd; this is what I am saying.  I would, however, also agree that "examine contrary evidence especially closely."  (I might note that it is a violation of "assume good faith" by Jerzy to draw implications about my character from this discussion.)
 * Huh? Ignored until the supposed implications are identified on my talk page. --Jerzy(t) 20:55, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)
 * As for the "obviously ridiculous results," I would have thought that they were clear from what I said above, but obviously, not clear enough. What I am saying is that Salvador Dali and Andy Warhol, amongst others, were relentless self-promoters, to a degree that many found distasteful.  One can almost not escape the argument that their fame derived, to a greater or lesser degree, from such self-promotion.  Is the argument that there might be some possibility that Dali and Warhol shouldn't have articles about them in Wikipedia because we are going to discount this self-promotion?  This is what I am describing as "obviously ridiculous".  On the other hand, criminals committing significant crimes, who wished to conceal their identities yet were nonetheless arrested and convicted, received "recognition" that they in no way wanted.  In summmary, my argument that it is the evidence of recognition, however that recognition was obtained, that should be chiefly considered, and the entire spectrum ranging from whether the recognition was constantly pushed for by its subject, to whether the recongition was completely unwanted, that I find pretty much unworkable.  --Daniel C. Boyer 15:01, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between being responsible for your own notability and being responsible for the only supposed evidence of your notability. A graffiti artist could claim that he's notable because his name is on every building in the city, but that doesn't mean anyone has taken note of him among the thousands of taggers, anymore than they've noticed one listing among thousands in web directories, no matter how many web directories that entry has been posted to, or one participant among dozens in one group show among thousands.  If, however, enough people have noticed that graffiti artist everywhere so that they start talking about him and wondering who he is and actively appreciating or loathing his tag, then that may be a different story.  But if the only one I hear talking about the graffiti artist is himself, I don't give a damn how many buildings he's slapped his name on.  But keep it up.  The more you pursue this, the more you guarantee that no one will ever want an article about you on wikipedia even if you show in the Guggenheim and make the cover of Artforum.  Postdlf 17:10, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I would fully agree with your four sentences, and if you would read what I wrote above, I would hope that that was made clear enough there. What I vehemently disagree with is your conduct when I am clearly discussing a general issue, not myself in particular, and you persist in ascribing motives to me.  While I would clearly say that if you are saying that if I had a show at the Guggenheim and made the cover of Artforum you would not want an article about me in Wikipedia, you are admitting to a sort of anti-Daniel C. Boyer bias that has no place in Wikipedia just as bias regarding another subject would not, I am obliged to remind that I did not vote on this, and that I said that if I would, it would be for Daniel C. Boyer to remain deleted.  I am not "pursuing this."  It is a breach of Wikiquette to read motives like this into general discussion of issues.  --Daniel C. Boyer 17:46, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * "General discussion of issues"? Please, you just happened to pop up when an article about yourself was nominated for undeletion, and you're clearly trying to influence the discussion.  Whatever presumption of good faith you deserved was erroded long ago.  Stop trying to act so innocent.  My only "bias" is against people trying to use wikipedia for self-promotion, particularly when they feign disinterest, a bias shared by most of the serious contributors on here.  Postdlf 18:04, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Stop trying to act so innocent yourself. You repeatedly make statements that are either false or misleading, and then when corrected on them slip out of the accusation by repeatedly reframing the original accusation.  When presented with evidence about something you admit that you can't be bothered to actually read all the evidence, yet feel completely qualified to draw conclusions about it.  (You have done this not only regarding Daniel C. Boyer but the subject of surrealism, in which I have offered a great deal of citation and documentation to debunk your claims about it, citation you have completely ignored.)  When you start talking saying that because I am generally discussing issues if I have a show at the Guggenheim or am on the cover of Artforum people on Wikipedia will not ever want an article about me you could just as well have been said to have had any presumption of good faith eroded as I have.
 * The issues regarding self-promotion I brought up are just as relevant to many other articles or possible articles as they were/are to Daniel C. Boyer. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:18, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I love how you keep claiming people are biased or prejudiced against you. The harsh judgments you are receiving are based entirely on your exhibited past and present conduct&mdash;how else are we to form any opinion of you?  I also don't know what you're talking about regarding surrealism, because as far as I can remember, I've never edited that article and haven't made any "claims" about it.  But I'm done responding to you&mdash;thus far, no one has ever managed to change your mind about your approach, or get you to admit that your "neutral advocacy" is anything but neutral, and I obviously don't have to worry that others won't see your comments for what they are.  Postdlf 22:32, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)