Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Nelson (Democrat)

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 04:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

David Nelson (Democrat)
Non-notable person --BaronLarf 02:05, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. He has worked with many notable people, but doesn't meet the standard himself. Also, I never thought I'd see an article with too many wikilinks. It's almost unreadable. Pburka 03:28, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm. This is clearly a vanity page. Equally clearly, this person is not well-known, and would ordinarily not be viewed as a person of sufficient significance or importance to merit mention in an encyclopedia. The greatest claim to fame appears to be in regards his political activities: eg. he's a member of the Democratic party, a delegate to various DNC conventions, etc. Most of the page lists his membership of organizations such as the NRA and various gay committees and groups. There is a curious section entitled "Politcal ancestry;" like everything else in the article it is unverified. There are two references, both books; it is unclear how relevant these are as source material for the subject (one is on the Sundance Film festival, the other a history of Salt Lake county). Problems: massive. This is an account of a largely unknown individual, which seems to stress his society memberships. The notability of any of it is difficult to see. All of the statements are unreferenced and most of the statements will be practically impossible to verify reliably without a great deal of primary research by Wikipedia editors. It is highly unlikely that the User is the subject of genuine research or reputable study/reporting. The autobiographical nature of the article gives rise to concerns of balance. All this results in a severe NPOV problem. I think this should be  deleted . WP:VAIN, WP:N, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:CITE. — Encephalon | &zeta;  04:10:42, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Never mind that I was a professional writer for some years and that I structured this article to resemble other existing Wikipedia:Biographies and Wikipedia:Autobiographies, I consider this article now to be copyrighted by me and not public domain. It can't be used by Wikipedia. Look for it elsewhere. Wikipedia just isn't worth it. --David Nelson — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Nelson (talk • contribs) 2005-08-16 05:23:49
 * Comment Mr. Nelson, thank you for your comment. I agree with you that the article was well composed. WP has certain policies in place that are meant to encourage the creation of encyclopedic entries of notable subjects, and as a community we are all bound to uphold them. It is important to note that criteria like "notability" refer only to significance with respect to the encyclopedia, and not the enormous importance and significance all of us have to our own communites and the people around us. While the above autobiographical venture may not be especially suited to WP, a writer of your obvious talent and diligence is bound to be a valuable contributor to the project. I hope you will reconsider and decide to stay. Kind regards— Encephalon | &zeta;  06:14:02, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
 * You can't just suddenly decide to seize rights to text submitted under the GFDL. Nonetheless, delete.  Non-notable.  Neurophyre 06:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * With emphasis: I structured this article to resemble others. How exactly is it more NN or VAIN than, say, that of my acquaintance and Wikipedian Pete Ashdown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Ashdown)? I wrote mine; he wrote his. I described my more than 25 years in local, state and national politics and government; he described his ... months of experience. I'd hoped to include my more than 200 mainstream news media references (not knowing I'd be tarred "vain" in less than a day thereby making editorial additions seem moot and reactionary); he's apparently happy with a few hundred words about his rave dances and what amounts to an unauthorized political advertisement. And on, and on, and on. No, I'm certainly not going to reconsider staying on with the kind of group this is. Your "expert" Wikipedians leave much about writing and editing to be desired. They're seemingly more interested in quick-on-the-draw intellectual one-up-manship. And, Neurophyre, yes, I can, I did. Too bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.181.18 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-16 05:23:49
 *  yes, I can. No you can't. I don't see a law degree anywhere in that glorified CV of yours, but so you'd best ask someone who does and can explain copyright law to you. Your sour grapes face-saving notwithstanding, this article is going to be deleted because of non-notability, not because of you. So delete on that basis. --Calton | Talk 09:24, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * I would argue that the context of this article is not even copyrightable. There are certain minimum standards, and this article is suspect.  Regardless, read this Copyrights - When you wrote this article you agreed that the license was irrevocable.  Sorry, you can't revoke it.  Peyna 13:46:28, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
 * I live a few thousand miles away from Utah but take moderate interest in American politics. Do I know about Pete Ashdown? Yes I do. Notability is hard to define, but I figure that's a good start. I also doubt we could call that page a vanity article, on the grounds that it was written by... someone in New York who is, on the balance of probabilities, not Mr. Ashdown. Shimgray 12:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I am not Mr. Ashdown. Andre ( talk ) 01:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity article. Peyna 13:46:28, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
 * Delete, but no hard feelings--simply put, Senate candidates are more notable in an encyclopedic way than are interest group members and political staffers. Best, Meelar (talk) 14:59, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pointless; vanity page. Dottore So 18:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Well structured article, why not use your skills for some notable articles, bear in mind, everything you do write, including your autobiography is release under GNU! And I don't think Pete Ashdown wrote his own article, unless he is Andrevan a wikipedia admin. - Hahnchen 01:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - Actually, on further reflection, I'm not sure whether this should be a delete. This guy is a gay rights activist, and I don't know about you guys, but just because I don't know any of them, doesn't mean they are none notable.  Deleting this may be part of systematic bias, I'm not so sure. - Hahnchen 13:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Hahnchen, that is truly an unsettling thought, isn't it? For a second it made me search myself, to wonder if that could possibly have contributed even an iota to my vote. I'm solid in the conviction that it couldn't, but the thought that people might face systematic bias in this way is always upsetting. My reaction to David's article was pretty straightforward. I thought it illustrated perfectly why writing about oneself is always problematic: if one is very famous and there is an embarrasment of sources available, there is the danger that only those supportive will be used; if one is less famous and there is little or no independent source material, there is a chance biases may not even be detected. The other problem is that people tend to focus on things that are personally important to them when they write about themselves. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this, but an encyclopedia article is meant to be an unbiased, neutral exploration of many important aspects of the subject — including those important aspects that the subject may not believe are important. I noted the policies I thought this article contravened, and voted accordingly. I do wish to note here, though, that I, and I'm sure all editors who voted here, bear no ill will whatsoever toward Mr. Nelson. Participating in VfD can be very painful, and sometimes we say things factually that we could afford to say more accomodatingly. I'm always trying to find the balance, and I hope I wasn't too badly off here. I addressed only the article and meant no offense to the person, and hope the comments weren't construed as such. Kind regards— Encephalon | &zeta;  00:51:08, 2005-08-19 (UTC)


 * Delete - A notable person in contemporary U.S. politics should be findable in Google News. Shimmin 13:50, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Encephalon. Johntex 19:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment. The comments that follow, apparently part of an email exchange between David Nelson and Kat Walsh, were pasted to this VfD by David Nelson at 2005-08-21 00:57:05

Hello and thank you for your message, Kat.

I wonder if those who wrote the messages that you described as "unkind" and "uncivil" will be treated as I've been by receiving warnings about their unapproved writings, temporary suspension or permanent cancellation of their publishing abilities, or other equitable restrictions for their actions that have violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

If not, why not?

If you agree, as others have, that my submission was "well-written," why delete it? This kind of policy of strict democracy and majority rule seems egalitarian, but, as some of those who voted to delete my submission also wrote, they know little if anything about the topic of gay politics. What other topics are they judging from a position of little or no knowledge? I wonder if the idea of "tyranny of the majority" is a Wikipedia topic.

Instead of deleting my submission, why wasn't there any official Wikipedia opinion voiced during the voting to consider EDITING? Your policies often and strongly encourage this approach lest the submitter take the path of least resistance and simply leave Wikipedia altogether. That's exactly what happened here.

As for the frequent claims that my submission violated the policy against vain and non-notable submissions simply because I wrote it myself, I wonder if all submissions are held to the standard of no autobiographical information. Too bad. I guess the autobiographies of Helen Keller, Benjamin Franklin and Marilyn Manson would be equally substandard for Wikipedia. I can point out several topics that would be equally vain and non-notable, but enjoy publication by Wikipedia, so it appears that the policy is applied arbitrarily.

Furthermore, would my submission be alright suddenly if I asked a friend to publish it?

Do you see where the policy of strict democracy and majority rule gets us? It's at best clumsy and at worst punitive. Hardly the stuff of "bringing encyclopedic information free to the world."

Finally, I believe that the Bomis ownership and management of Wikipedia and its subsidiaries is an uphill battle without the added trouble of appearing to censor information that is published elsewhere. But that's just my advice.

Meanwhile, I'll be working with other online pedias which take a less strident approach of exclusion.

-- David Nelson Salt Lake City

+++++Original message++++ From: Wikipedia information team  > Dear David Nelson, > > Thank you for your mail. > > david.nelson22@att.net wrote: > > > *Please note, the sender's email address has not been verified. > > > > You have received the following link from david.nelson22@att.net > > > > ******************** > > > > If you are having trouble with any of the links in this message, or if the > > URL's are not appearing as links, please follow the instructions at the bottom > > of this email. > > > > Title: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/David Nelson (Democrat) - Wikipedia, the > > free encyclopedia > > I'm sorry your Wikipedia experience has been a frustrating one. > > This discussion on this article will remain open for five days, according to > our policies, and may remain open slightly longer until an administrator comes > around to close it, at which time it appears that the article will be deleted. > > I'm disappointed to see that you were addressed unkindly here; uncivil > statements are discouraged but they do appear on occasion; on a public forum > there will be all kinds of people not all of whom are interested in productive > discussion. The article was well-written and I'm sorry to hear you don't > intend to return, and would encourage you to reconsider; however, I do > unserstand if you don't wish to do so. > > Sincerely, > Kat Walsh > > -- > Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org


 * David Nelson said:


 * "Furthermore, would my submission be alright suddenly if I asked a friend to publish it?"


 * Quite simply, no. David, you seem an intelligent chap, so why can't you see if we let every person who use Wikipedia create their own article, there would be madness. Thus we have a in-built "notability" idea (notability is actually not a reason for deletion, but that's not the issue). You already have a talk page on which you can espouse about yourself (User:David Nelson), why need an article too?


 * Please read this article to get some idea on why your article was put for VfD: WP:VAIN. Oh, I am voting delete. Kel-nage 01:14, 21 August 2005 (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.