Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Kleist


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

David Kleist
Vanity page written by about a poet who writes a lot but refuses to publish it because he seeks to "find his way as a writer outside the realm of traditional publishing". The prod tag (along with other cleanup tags) was recently removed by the same user who explained on the talk page why he thinks this should stay. My prod rationale read "Well if David Kleist refuses to publish his work, I see little reason for Wikipedia to publish advertisement for him..." and I stand by that comment. On the talk page David Kleist explains why he thinks a deletion would be unfair and this includes the argument that "had it existed in his time, Vicent Van Gogh never would have graced the Wikipedia's pages". Well I suppose I am ready to take the risk of being viewed in a hundred years' time as the imbecile who failed to see David Kleist's genius but in the meantime the content in there cannot be verified by reliable independent third-party sources. Pascal.Tesson 14:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: The above comments were moved by the article's subject at 20:20, 9 September 2006. As the introductory post is intended to present the reasoning behind the nominator's action, it has been restored to the appropriate position. Victoriagirl 20:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per Wikipedia, she be many things, and a wonderous ride, but she ain't a free webhost, no siree and WP:VAIN and so many, many more - like WP:V, one of my favourites. WilyD 14:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, this article does not meet verifiability policy, nor does it meet teh biographical notability guidelines. Even if the nom is "the imbecile who failed to see David Kleist's genius", Wikipedia isn't meant to be on the cutting edge of notability... as an encyclopedia it is meant to take notice only after other published sources have. --Isotope23 14:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and add me to the list of imbeciles who fail to see the genius in deliberately not publishing one's writings. (And incidentally, Van Gogh was indeed not notable during his life. It was not until after his death that he became famous and verifiable sources began to be generated about him.) wikipediatrix 16:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wiki is not a place where he may eventually post his manuscripts on-line.   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  17:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The article is an autobiography. When this was pointed out,  stated that it could be "verified by checking the profile data" at Amazon &mdash; which in fact is another autobiography (It begins with "In my own words".).  We only have the author's sole word for any of this.  This article is original research and unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 18:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per every single comment above. What more can one add? Victoriagirl 19:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * DO NOT DELETE: Despite repeatedly referencing verifiable sources (Who's Who Among American Teachers; Outstanding Young Americans, 31st Anniversary edition), Wikinazis below insist that this submission is unverifiable. I stand by MY claims that the article is NOT a vanity piece. Note that I explicitly state that I AM published (Christianity and Literature; Amaranth; The Rolling Coulter; The Manuscript; Pen and Ink; etc.). So-called little magazines have never been so villified as by you so-called encyclopedists. The so-called editors of Wikipdia apparently don't know how to closeread an article submission. I would call Pascal Tesson an imbecil in the PRESENT time, not in one hundred years. "Genius" is never invoked here; notability is the criteria of Wikipedia, Pascal. I maintain Who's Who Among American Teachers is a reliable independent third-party source and that my article, if deleted, will be expunged by petty demagogues. Again, PUBLISHED SOURCES HAVE CONSISTENTLY TAKEN NOTICE OF THE WORK OF DAVID KLEIST. And, of course, Van Gogh WAS notable during his lifetime, having been recognized by Gaughin and others while alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David A. Kleist (talk • contribs) 2006-09-09 20:20:48
 * Comment Now now. Let's not get too carried away. I think it's important to point out that no, the Who's Who Among America's Teachers is not a reliable independent third-party source. For one thing it's not clear what criteria they use and they mostly try and evaluate an individual's qualities as a teacher, not as a poet. Now I may be a petty demagogue and an imbecile but I sure know vanity when I see it. Let me remind you again that Wikipedia is not a soapbox and it should strike you as odd that in the month and a half that your article stood no one (besides yourself) has cared to edit it except to tag it as inappropriate. As hard a landing as this might be, we the petty demagogues of Wikipedia feel that you fail to reach the threshold of importance which would justify the effort of maintaining this article in the future. Pascal.Tesson 22:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete a terrible piece of vanity work. I'm not opposed to this person having an entry on WP, it just definitely should not be written by him. Danny Lilithborne 00:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

KLEIST 16:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)PLEASE DELETE. How naive for me to imagine that normal publishing was less than gratifying!


 * 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.