Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dj grothe


 * 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 of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 05:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Dj grothe
Non-notable vanity. Created by User:Djgrothe, who had his original vanity page userfied, went to the Help Desk to complain, was told to read WP:BIO and then came back and created this again anyway. Zoe 05:45, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - NN Vanity Page, user should follow guidelines for user pages Digital Thief 12:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -- because have followed guidelines at WP:BIO: I write for a magazine that has 30,000 subscribers (the guidelines say the author should write for something over 5,000 subscribers) and I pass what they called the "google test". Agreed that guidelines should be followed, and I think they have been. Djgrothe 9:10, 16 August 2005
 * With respect to 'passing' the Google test, I get only about 160 useful Googles. -Splash 02:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Re: the "Google test" - with the name DJ Grothe in quotes, Google returns about 559 hits, but can omit similar pages to get 198. Your search for some reason omits some of the media hits. Google is always changing, too. What's a good number that generally most bios get when passing the google test?  I'm curious. Djgrothe 14:08, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete You certainly do exist, but so do hundreds of millions of other people also show up on google. You get about 198 unique google hits, which comes nowhere near to independantly proving your notability. Both of the articles on your alternative sources of notability were created today either by you (Free Inquiry) or by an anon IP address (Center for Inquiry, currently copyvio) that quite helpfully also added the 30,000 reader claim. However, the 5,000 person guideline is being stretched to it's limits here. Someone with an op-ed piece in a free 'zine that made 5000 copies would have a very hard time convincing anyone they were notable for that. Similarily, I don't think you've done enough to prove that you're notable, and as an admitted vanity piece, you need to really make sure you done that. --Icelight 17:06, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * "The vanity of others offends us only when it offends our own vanity." -- Nietzsche. This is just a followup comment -- I do not think the entry is a vanity piece, unless it is only by definition. Free Inquiry's subscription numbers are 30,000, not 5,000, as is easily discovered by a search. I agree that one op-ed piece isnt notable, but its a regular contribution and column to that and other magazines (do a google search).  Moreover, the magazine isnt free, it is subscriber based like the Nation and New Republic. And I clearly pass the google test. Its confusing why if the guidelines are followed people would so fluster. If there is really consensus that the entry should be deleted even after my showing that the guidelines at WP:BIO have been followed, I'll delete the posting and consider the Wikipedia to be more for officious folks and less in the spirit of important knowledge compilation such as the Encylclopedia of Diderot and d'Alembert. But if you have guidelines, and people follow them, you ought abide by the guidelines. Djgrothe 1:28pm, 16 August 2005
 * Delete Speedily? This self-serving vanity rubbish better belongs in a the page author's 'encylclopedia' rather than an encyclopedia. Dottore So 19:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If no one has the time or motivation to vote to include this entry, I respectfully suggest it just be taken down. I was merely trying to broaden the Wikipedia to include an entry that clearly followed the guidelines at at WP:BIO. I think it is a shame that not but one of the votes for deletion, which itself seemed based on a misunderstanding, followed the guideline "All Wikipedians, however, should try not to appear terse, gruff, and abrupt in their VFD postings. All Wikipedians should do their best to treat contributors with respect and good will," as stated in the Guide for Deletion. Again, such tiresome officiousness. Djgrothe 20:12, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity.  Not quite speedy material. --Carnildo 21:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity. The guidelines are only guidelines, not rules, and the 5000 thing is (imho) a joke. -Splash 21:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If the guidelines are followed, why get all officious. It is explanatory to see the comments that others have said about these knee-jerk deleters. Some of them seem to confirm the negative reputation wikipedia has. "This is a work that cannot be completed except by a society of men of letters and skilled workmen, each separately on his own part, but all bound together by their zeal for the best interests of the human race and a feeling of mutual good will." -- Denis Diderot, when writing of the original collaborative Encyclopedia project, which was a crowning achievement of the Enlightenment.   Djgrothe 00:35, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * I am sorry you have taken umbrage, but the point is clear that vanity pages are unacceptable; not only are they usually obnoxious in and of themselves, they further reflect poorly on the encyclopedic project as a whole. It is understandable that people who make good faith efforts editing and correcting entries will take issue with such clearly unimportant, self-promoting fluff.  Recall Denis Diderot's admonition: fools have been and always will be the majority of mankind Dottore So 02:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I havent taken offense, but have just been puzzled by the sourpuss rejoinders and reasons. And yes, Diderot was the best of examples: an atheist working for the betterment of humankind while at the same time realizing how annoying and unhelpful humanity can be. Djgrothe 02:51, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * It is also worth reading WP:AUTO. I can't think of a quote to italicise. -Splash 02:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the nudge to read WP:AUTO. You're right; it was worth reading and helpful and clears up why some people imediately smarted at my submitting the entry.  If vanity is my offense, I should begin arguing that I pride myself on my humility. :) Djgrothe 02:51, August 17, 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.