Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Dames second nomination


 * 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 Speedy keep, nomination was WP:POINT. Stifle (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Ed_Dames
This article provides information about a man who was in the military that happened to be involved in some sort of pseudoscience. He's a regular guest on a radio program; however, does that make him notable? Looks like he founded some business that sells some sort of kit for hundreds of dollars to learn "remote viewing." He appears to be still doing that [today]. What idiot would fall for that? Ok, so he made it to Hollywood once...isn't that the dream of every typical American scumbag? It appears that he's not even good at what he claims to be doing nor was he involved in the development of it. This guy just isn't notable at all. Nothing more then another crackpot with a Wikipedia article. -Oublier 21:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep bad faith nomination by user with personal grudge against article subject (see history of, , admins see deleted history of , also contribs for , also the other user to prod this, ). Subject appears to be notable - a crank, but the article makes that plain. Just zis Guy you know? 21:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Note also edit history for, who has, at least, signed his posts as Oublier, and posted other comments for which Cro..Scream forged a signature. Clearly this user and this IP are part of the Cro..Scream sock/meat conglomerate. - Fan1967 21:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: see this RFCU. Just zis Guy you know? 12:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You might want to add that to the request at RFCU. Just zis Guy you know? 21:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment How is he notable? All the information provided on this article came from his websites. That does not constitute notability. --Oublier 21:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * >50k ghits. Just zis Guy you know? 21:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Those hits are coming from where? -Oublier 22:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per JzG. I was wondering how long it'd take before this one was brought here. Metros232 21:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable crank, bad-faith nom. Fan1967 21:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, Conclusion of previous discussion on the nomination for deletion of the Ed Dames article: Articles for deletion/Ed Dames. All included in this discussion voted for deletion but the article was kept. What is the explanation for that? --Oublier 22:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * ... or you could just go straight to Articles for deletion/Ed Dames. - Fan1967 22:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, thank you.--Oublier 22:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep. Appears to be WP:POINT by nom. DarthVad e r 23:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep as per above. wikipediatrix 00:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Feel free to dispute my "credibility" instead of discussing the article up for deletion. If you think I'm just not of good "faith" then simply vote keep then nominate this pathetic excuse of an article yourself. --Oublier 00:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per above. Another reason why notability is subjective, POV, and should not be used as a criteria for inclusion in or deletion from Wikipedia. People fall for all sorts of things that have enough verifiable information that warrant an encyclopedia article. DanielZimmerman 03:58, 13 May 2006 (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.