Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grant Neufeld/vote3

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. ugen 64 03:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Grant Neufeld
Non-notable, unencyclopedic, vainity. Delete. --Spinboy 23:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Previous vfds at Votes for deletion/Grant Neufeld/vote1 and Votes for deletion/Grant Neufeld/vote2.


 * Comment. I'm curious what new problems - or new support for previously suggested problems - you've identified with the article that were not addressed in the VfD that was closed this morning. If there is nothing new, I'm not sure how this vote is expected to come out any different. Can you elaborate, please? Thanks. -GrantNeufeld 00:23, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I was going to let this go by until I'd had more time to think, but this was last voted on 17 hours ago. This seems like an attempt to game the system because you didn't like the outcome. Keep. Meelar (talk) 01:06, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * The outcome was no consensus. --Spinboy 01:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * That's correct. So please share the new information or arguments you have to present that may change that. Otherwise, we may reasonably conclude that the lack of consensus is not likely to shift. Thanks, GrantNeufeld 01:39, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * There is some precedent for re-listing a vote that has had no consensus. But the previous votes should at least still stand if it was from yesterday to prevent people from having to say the same thing over again. As such,
 * Keep. GrantNeufeld 19:10, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Kevintoronto 16:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Samaritan 15:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. CJCurrie 23:21, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Calton | Talk 01:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. SWAdair | Talk  05:40, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)  Vote changed to keep -- see below.  SWAdair | Talk  09:44, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Radiant_* 11:33, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Rossami (talk) 04:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * (votes imported from yesterday's VfD by Radiant_* 10:00, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC))


 * Delete. I strongly believe in Wikipedia's "semi-policy" discouraging autobiographies for all of the reasons stated on that page.  Users are specifically advised not to create or edit articles about themselves.  It needs to be established that this article merits an exemption from those guidelines.  Preferably this argument will be backed up with precedents on Wikipedia.  The content of the article remains a secondary concern to this matter.  If an exception to the autobiography guidelines is made here then this article will serve as a precedent justifying additional exemptions in future Vfd autobiography debates.  Kurieeto 12:56, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, autobiography. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:19, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

--Spinboy 23:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Since we're counting votes from the last one, we should count the votes from the first vfd as well:
 * Delete.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 07:07, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Dr Zen 07:09, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Rednblu | Talk 11:17, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * No, those votes and the associated discussion should not be counted. That vote was closed last year (as opposed to the second vote which was closed yesterday), and was for what was a completely different article in content from the one being voted on here. In any case, I removed your copy of Meelar's old vote because there is a new vote them above. GrantNeufeld 00:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for removing it, I knew I'd miss something. I think it should count though. --Spinboy 00:34, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep! Community consensus means nothing if we only abide by it when things go our way.  Relisting an article that survived VfD less than a day after closing the last VfD is a blatant attempt to game the system.  For the record, I am the admin who closed the last VfD.  In that VfD I voted to delete, but when it came time to close it I saw that there was no consensus.  By our rules, that means the article stays.  Even though I voted to delete, I respected community consensus, which by default was keep.  This time I must vote to keep the article to avoid setting a horrible precedent -- if you don't like the last vote, just list it again and again and again...  SWAdair | Talk  02:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no policy against relisting an article as soon as it has survived VfD, but there should be, IMO. Previous discussion can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion/August_2004 and also Proposed new rule: No repeat submission of articles.  SWAdair | Talk  10:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought it was supposed to be three months or something. - David Gerard 15:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I missed it the first time round, userfy and delete from the main namespace, wikipedia is not a platform for the self-promotion of Grant Neufeld--nixie 04:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, self-confessed vanity. Grue 07:02, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, agree with SWAdair that this vote is an attempt to game the system.-gadfium 03:32, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * But if it's vanity, why the hell should it stay? Grue 04:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Someone writing substantial chunks of their own article is an NPOV problem, not something that makes them unencyclopedic - David Gerard 15:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:32, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep &#10149;the Epopt 15:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I could live without the article, but repeated VFDs of this nature are to be discouraged. Keep. - David Gerard 15:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer if people creating articles about themselves would be discouraged. VfD relisting is not a problem, vanity pages are. Grue 15:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The subject is probably article-worthy. The article is not bad; not great either, but not bad. The solution is to make it not an autobiography. Since Grant Neufeld has been helpful, cooperative, and generally cool about things, unlike nearly every other Wikipedian autobiographer, this shouldn't be a problem. Keep and rewrite as necessary. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 16:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with SWAdair. -- Eugene van der Pijll 15:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just putting in my two cents: I disagree with the relisting of this immediatley after the end of the vote, and normally would have voted keep just because of the disruption this vote causes. However, this person is not only clearly not notable, and the article is also an autobiography, two very clear sins. If it were not for the very nature of the article, keep would be an vote. If it were not for the disruption of relisting, delete would be an obvious vote. I have to abstain, though this person is clearly not notable, and we should not allow not notable people to write autobiographies. RickK 20:16, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear though, I edited this article to make it more encyclopedic, and to remove any last traces of "glow". I think that the article now reads pretty much as someone else would have written it. If it hasn't then I encourage you to edit it further.
 * As far as notability, there is an on-going debate as to whether a defeated candidate from an election is notable or not. In this case, we have a defeated candidate who has several other acomplishments to his credit. This is why I voted to keep. Ground Zero 21:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making those NPOV edits. My concern is that the precedent set here is that autobiographical creations and edits are acceptable if copyedited by another Wikipedian.  This unneccessarily puts additional work and responsibility onto the shoulders of Wikipedians.  Also, if we approve an autobiographical article creation here, and approve its content as of today, what do we do if Grant chooses to edit it sometime in the future?  With each of his edits there is a much higher likelihood than normal that questions of bias will be raised, encouraging future unneccessary conflicts that will have to be resolved.  I maintain that this article should be assessed for deletion based on the autobiographical procedure that has been followed, which takes precedence over its content. Kurieeto 11:40, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Kuri, Grant is free, as are all Wikipedians, to make edits in the future. The article should be watched, as so many are, to ensure that POV edits are not made. This morning I have adjusted the Paul Martin and Craig Chandler articles to remove POV stuff added over the weekend. This is just a part of having on open-content encyclopedia.
 * If Craig Chandler were to take an interest and started edited his article, would we remove it altogether? Indeed, would we even know? If he were to take an identity-masking userid (Ground Zero, for the record, is already taken), we would not know, nor would we if he edited without registering.
 * Grant has accepted my edits and has made no attempt to revert them. If he did in a POV way, then I would probably have to vote to delete, but it is clear that he is accepting that article on him is open to edits by others.
 * If the article is to be deleted on the basis that it was created by its subject, what would happen if I were to re-create the article with the same text? then it would no longer be "autobiographical", I guess. I don't see the point of going through that. Let's decide on the basis of whether Grant is notable or not. Ground Zero 13:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. While it might have been NPOV'ed, this article still reads like the textbook piece of vanity it is. Autobiographies just don't make good Wikipedia articles. If there was an article on me (would be non-notable, but supposing it wasn't) then if I noticed an inaccuracy, felt that the article was biased, or thought there was some useful information missing, I would say so on the talk page and leave others to incorporate my suggestions as they saw fit. It is simply not ethical to write an article on yourself. I look forward to the day when Autobiography achieves the status of formal policy, and we have a clear presumption against keeping articles written by their subjects. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 03:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I hate voting on VfD, which I entirely deprecate, but I randomed his page. This is intolerable. There is no policy against autobiographies. Yes, they are frowned on, but they are not banned or anything. And relisting this just shows a contempt for consensus. Why not ask Grant to step aside from this article and work on others? Other editors can verify the information in the article. If it's all verifiable, no harm has been done. Please, everyone, I agree he shouldn't have done it, but it's here now. Let's find a more Wikilovely way to sort it out. Grace Note 14:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, agree with the assessment of SWAdair. ElBenevolente 18:53, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Ejrrjs | What? 22:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.