Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenn A Christodoulou


 * 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. --Stephanie talk 14:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Glenn A Christodoulou

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable. Also a copy of User:Christodouloug534, making it WP:COI. Created by the same person who made E J Boys. I tagged it WP:CSD, but tags were removed. Whstchy 17:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment User that the page copies blanked his userpage. View here:  Whstchy 18:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, seeing as User:Whstchy has pointed out a conflict of interest at work. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment The 'conflict of interest' has been explained following the accusation by User:Whstchy of sock puppetry. Several academics new to Wikipedia have been checking and editing each other's articles to ensure they are of a high standard. Therefore this article should not be deleted. 27 May 2007 Jack1956 13:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)]
 * CommentSince the above message User:Whstchy has canvassed  Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) to vote against this page as he had nominated it for deletion and no one else had supported his opinion. Doesn't sound like that's in the spirit of Wikipedia to me.  See copy below.  This is starting to look like some sort of personal crusade.

'''[== Hey ==

Not to sound like I'm canvasing here (I technically am, but with reason), but I have an AfD that has no votes on it. Could you look at Articles for deletion/Glenn A Christodoulou please? Been sitting like that since I opened it.]'''

Jack1956


 * Comment Jack, please sign your posts by typing ~ . Charlie 02:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I did that because no one had voted, and I know ten pound can provide rational thought to the process. There's a difference between one person I know and a whole bunch of random people. --Whsitchy 23:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Nevertheless, no one voted against this article, including Ten pound Hammer, until you'd canvassed him. You were so determined to get this article deleted that you asked some one else to vote. In fact, I think you've nominated all my articles for deletion, haven't you. Jack1956 10:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:CANVAS explains what canvasing is. One, I did not ask ten pound to vote a certain way, two, I only asked because of no votes.--Whsitchy 14:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment It is my contention that by drawing Ten Pound Hammer's attention to the article, and by pointing out to him that it had not received any votes in support of your proposal to delete it, that you were actually implying to him that you wanted him to vote against the article. You were not saying to him, 'Hey, take a look at this great article I've found'!

I also note that you make no comment concerning what I said about your attempts to get my other articles deleted by persistently nominating them. It is my belief that you have a problem with me, hence your entirely negative interest in and towards my articles. Jack1956 16:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not have a problem with you, just that the articles were not up to standard, and violated policy. Whsitchy 17:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment With the exception of one article, [E J Boys], unfairly deleted in my opinion, every article you nominated for deletion was improved with suggestions by other editors and saved. Even then you put a CSD tag on my well-established E G Bowen article, which was removed by another editor. In my opinion [and the opinion of some of the users on your Talk page] you are sometimes a little too quick with the speedy deletion and AfD/CSD tags. In my opinion you need to look deeper into articles to see if there is anything of merit and if so to be encouraging. We are all doing this to expand knowledge. You have bitten a newbie.'''  Jack1956 18:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment The "You have bitten a newbie" was added by user:86.152.81.34, who has no contribs outside the page. Also, Jack... I'm about ready to take offense to your comments. Whsitchy 22:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep He seems notable enough to me CharlieAmos 14:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC) — CharlieAmos (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep I agree...the subject of the article stands up as being suitable for inclusion MDJB 15:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC) — MDJB (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * IMPORTANT COMMENT The above two have made no contribs outside this AfD or their user pages at this time. Whsitchy 23:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Both the above users, as well as User:Jack1956, have been blocked indefinitely as sockpuppets.  Eliminator JR Talk  08:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Non notable subject. Looks like some sockpuppetry here as well.  Bradybd 08:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Response No sock -puppetry here. I simply asked a couple of Wikipedia users to take a look at the article and provide rational thought to the process. They made up their own minds as to the notability or otherwise of the subject. Jack1956 10:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Yet when Whsitchy did that, you accused him of canvassing. Edward321 16:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * RESPONSE You failed to note the irony of my highlighted comment which was copied from Whsitchy! Jack1956 10:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Irony is not the word I'd use. Edward321 16:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Two users who understand the Wikipedia concepts of notability with their very first edits? Not at all suspicious, then.  Eliminator JR  Talk  12:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete The Times reference is a letter TO the paper, the Guardian link is a one-liner, the TV appearances are fleeting, and the book is privately published, by the looks of it. The fairly obvious sockfest doesn't inspire me to go hunting deeply for sources, either.  Eliminator JR  Talk  09:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete – Cruft article of a person of questionable notability. Also, Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for people wishing to seek out their 15 minutes of fame. ~ SEEnoEVIL punch the keys 10:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. Minimal ghits. Apparently this guy is as notable a collector of Doctor Who memorabilia as anything else, though that's not in the article. BTLizard 10:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not ready to say it is necessarily sockpuppetry going on here, but at the very least it doesn't pass WP:BIO, as hard as it may try. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maintainerzero (talk • contribs)
 * Delete as unsourced bio: the Times citation is for a trivial letter to the editor unrelated to his career, and the guardian story is mainly about other people. DGG 21:21, 1 June 2007 (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.