Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duane W. Hamacher


 * 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 userfy. The creator and sole content editor requested deletion in the discussion below, but userfication seems to fit better, there being more than one way to "take it down" in this instance. I've removed the AFD notices, categories, and whatnot. I encourage all editors reading this to remember that they, too, can occasionally be logged out, that logging in isn't necessarily important to people who just want to write, and that not logging in is not automatically acting in bad faith. I remind M. Hamacher to remember your password and ensure that you have a disaster recovery plan. Uncle G (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Duane W. Hamacher

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Clearly fails all aspects of WP:ACADEMIC. Article is an autobiography and all substantial content has been added by the subject and by an IP address that is obviously the subject. PROD declined by the IP without explanation. Subject just received his Ph.D. this year and holds an entry level, non-tenured, academic rank. He has been quoted several times by Australian press, but that would not grant notability under WP:ACADEMIC. Safiel (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence of notability in the wiki sense. Springnuts (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - I posted the original, and I stand by my assertion that the article fails WP:PROFESSOR. Philip Trueman (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt due to the blatant sockpuppetry. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking in the third person is not sockpuppetry. It does not meet the definitions as stated by Wiki.  Take it down.  Duane Hamacher. 2 December 2012.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.149.179.205 (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Contributing to the same page from multiple accounts, or from both an account and an IP, is sockpuppetry, and it does appear that the edits to Duane W. Hamacher by Duane W. Hamacher and 122.149.179.205 were made by the same person. There is also the remarkable fact that both Duane W. Hamacher and DuaneHamacher have contributed to Australian Aboriginal Astronomy Project (an article which could do with  and  tags) when neither is flagged as a legitimate alternative account of the other.  The situation is so obvious that I don't think filing a Checkuser request at WP:SPI is even warranted.  And is "Take it down" intended as a legal threat?  It does seem to me that the best course of action is for the article creator to admit here that he made a mistake, agree that the article under discussion should be deleted, and undertake to abide by Wikipedia's policies in the future.  Philip Trueman (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article posts and edits are by the same person (Duane W. Hamacher). I do not usually log-in to make edits as I make them very infrequently.  I haven't used my previous account in a long time and forgot my login details, which is why I made a new one with my new email.  Not all edits are actions of conspiracy or sock-puppetry and not all comments are threats.  I meant that *the page in question* does not meet the requirements as given by Wiki, not the term sockpuppetry.  It was a mistake on my part, as I was not aware of the WP:ACADEMIC rules.  I fully agree that the page should be removed, which is also why I removed a huge chunk of the text except the first line, since it cannot be "blanked".  Duane W. Hamacher.
 * Fair enough. For future use you might want to research WP:FAQ/Technical and the use of the  tag. Philip Trueman (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:36, 2 December 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.