Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faustbook


 * 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. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D  17:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Faustbook

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable film. Only cites are primarysources, blogs, etc...need some serious mentions in major reliable sources to have a viable article. PROD declined because article has already been through PROD (deleted, then recreated later). Only contributors are WP:SPA, many with apparent or self-declared relationship to subject (including CU-confirmed WP:SOCKing). DMacks (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete' -- Non-notable straight to video film. Apparent vanity page lovingly groomed by a host of socks. Attempted rescue (by non-sock) doesn't do anything to establish notability -- and adds some fairly suspect sources also. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I am seeing what I can do to bring the article into line. I have no relationship with the film or filmmakers. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can, good luck to you. I cannot see that there is anything salvageable. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * R-r-right. We all know you sold your soul for movie knowledge and power. I wish you good luck saving this, MQS--anything Faust-related ought to be saved. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment:, who apparently has a conflict of interest where the Leisers are concerned, has been removing the AfD tags from Leiser-related articles. They are currently on their final warning on the matter.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup. Newcomers who do not understand the processes. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Would that were true MQS, these SPAs and socks are abusing wikipedia for their own self-promotional ends. I have told the albinofawn user (now blocked) about not removing AfD tags and a checkuser has shown that he is the same as 69.201.128.95. There's nothing confused about this campaign at all. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I doubt that your well-meant and courteous cautions meant anything to them. It is an unfortunate fact that newcomers often become very frustrated in their lack of understanding of policy or guideline... and far too often, that lack of understanding of WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:ADVERT, and WP:NPOV results in bitterness from newcomers toward the project as a whole. Not from all newcomers certainly, but from enough to show it as an ongoing problem accross the entire project. I agree that warning and blocking incivility and puppetry is sometimes the only solution.  But I'm trying a different tactic.. working now to improve the Eric Leiser article, as I feel it is worth a pre-emptive rescue through expansion and sourcing... and perhaps these newcomers might learn by seeing how it is done. Maybe.  MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment:" Apparently if we don't allow this article to stay, we are all complicit in Jacob Faust's death. The IP I have listed above is now making personal attacks against Bigdaddy.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Lovely! That's the first time I've been accused of murder by a sockpuppet. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, 69... is a sock puppet of, which is the name of Eric Leiser's personal website. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Eric Leiser. All the puppets aside, I am myself now invloved in expanding and sourcing the article about the filmmaker. There may not be enough to support Faustbook as a seperate article, but there is enough to source the fimmaker as notable, so I am adding some info about his works there... where it has context in relation to his other works. If IPs vandalize the article, I might then ask for semi protection.   MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: given the spectacular amount of sockery and the taste for these abusive editors to resurrect pages -- if it is deleted I would consider salting. 22:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To the unsigned comment above: It may be a bit time-consuming, but offering a bit of guidence to these new contributors might serve in their understanding of how articles are supposed to be created for Wikipedia. I believe one decent and properly-sourced article (as I am doing on the Eric Leiser article) may serve to prevent the puppets from creating dozens of spinouts. Lead by example? Just saying... MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooops -- that was me,Bigdaddy1981. As the recipient of masses of personal abuse -- some of it pretty bizarre -- from these people (or person), I have to say that I sincerely doubt that'll work. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah. I should have looked at the history. The attentions be paid to you and Who then was a gentleman? are inappropriate, to say the least. I will continue efforts on the filmmaker article, and can only hope that just maybe they will then understand that there is a process that should be followed. Maybe not. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:45, 26 August 2009 (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.