Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Fraser (columnist)

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Ian Fraser (columnist)

 * Delete - Original work / conspiracy theory / attack on columnist - brought to you as an advert for www.wikinerds.org spam. T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  16:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delete This is slander libel gkhan 18:50, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * No y t quite slander (actually libel - slander's spoken). The cited article does opine that there may well be an attack in Egypt; shortly afterwards there was. The author of the article doesn't go as far as saying that there's a connection. Delete anyway; purely an attack page. Tonywalton 19:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I stand, as I often do, corrected :P gkhan 19:56, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * I corrected my typo (but I was sitting) just so you don't feel alone ;-) Tonywalton


 * Delete, wouldn't object to speedy as a thinly veiled attack page. -Splash 19:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I just want to point out that I never meant to attack this columnist. What make you to believe the article is an attack? He predicted an event, and I documented this, and then I just asked how he did that and I added the information that the event occured on the national day. That's all. I can't understand why someone would consider this libel. It's just a neutral documentation of something that happened in reality (columnist predicts an event, event actually happens). Can someone please explain to me why you consider this an attack? Wikinerd 21:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It very much implies that there's a connection. If it is not an attack page, what, exactly, is it for? "Ian Fraser made a guess which subsequently turned out to come to pass" is hardly encyclopaedic, is it? If you consider it is, please explain how. Tonywalton 22:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It is natural that on the national day there may be terrorist attacks, since this has happened before too. I believe this columnist just guessed and his intention was to put some tone of conspiracy in his column and attract readers' attention. I considered this interesting and funny so I documented it. I could not even imagine that anyone would consider this libel. Wikinerd 02:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete original research, not encyclopedic. --Howcheng 22:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete (author request) because it's an article from my wiki and the attribution notice (required by GFDL in my interpretation) was removed, and the fact that some people here consider Ian Fraser (columnist) libel and attack means probably that my humorous intention is not clear from my writing. If more people consider this libel I may also delete it from my wiki. Wikinerd 02:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * "Humorous"? You realize this is an encyclopedia, right?  Not a blog? -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  03:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * As I explain in my userpage, I don't believe in the old 18th century encyclopedia concept which has no place in the digital era (see my blog post The future of wikis). Wikinerd 04:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * On your own wiki, I can understand your intent to make yours more humorous, or blog-like. But, why do you think this is appropriate for the "free encyclopedia"? Original work (in this case, in the form of your humor) is not accepted as basic policy. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  14:25, 16 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.