Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Felton (author)


 * 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 09:21Z 

Jake Felton (author)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Absurd spoof autobiography. Fiction/Fantasy. No notability whatsoever. Non-existent references. Steve.Moulding 03:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? What evidence do you have to back your claims? dool325 03:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * DELETE - ISBN numbers in "resources" are for other books. Googling for "skibumj12" gets you nothing.  I had a speedy delete at the top of this page, but it got removed by User:Dool325. --Bkkbrad 03:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The answer is not a speedy deletion. We should give the authors a chance to reconfigure their sources, in the meantime leaving the page up with the tags at the top so people know what's going on. Let's give the authors the benefit of the doubt here, it could all be an honest mistake. dool325 03:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It's an email based service. Here is an example of one of his releases Press Release

First, concerning the temperatures: The frigid Arctic air that has gripped our region over the past few days is, whether you like it or not, on its way out, and replacing it will be more seasonable temperatures--highs in the mid 30s and lows near the 20-degree mark.

In terms of precipitation--well, there's little reason to celebrate. The jet stream trough remains positioned just a bit too far east to permit any significant winter storms; instead, all we'll get is the occasional Alberta clipper that delivers a dusting of the white stuff.

This weather pattern, however, may change in the not-too-distant future. ..

As of now, we're tracking two potential winter storms, one on the 13th and one on the 16th. Now these systems are still forming over the Pacific ocean, so whether or not they'll even impact our area is exceptionally questionable, thus any attempts to estimate their exact paths or calibers would be hugely inappropriate, to say the least.

Nonetheless, more details will emerge over the remainder of the week. We'll keep you updated. ..

Next press release on Sunday; please stay tuned.

skibumj12 Weather Service

As you can see from the above reference, the Service does indeed exist. Since it is not acclaimed much by those not subscribed to it, one should not expect Google results.
 * Delete article about this "aspiring writer, pilot, and weatherman" per WP:BIO. We shouldn't get in the way of his aspirations, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Gsearch reveals only 159 ghits, of which 76 unique, and which show that the most well known Jake Felton is an american Jockey. No hits on Amazon for Jake Felton, so Delete per WP:V and WP:RS. Ohconfucius 03:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * DeleteAs obvious hoax. Article makes numerous outrageous claims and backs them up with a number of books that do not exist.  I wish there was a speedy category for hoaxes but since there is not this will have to do. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This is ludicrous You have no proof that this is a hoax. Give the authors a chance to provide legitimate sources. If in a few days they do not, then you can go ahead and delete it. Otherwise, you are defeating the purpose of Wikipedia. dool325 03:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Just because he and skibumj12 exist and does not mean the whole bio was not something this 23 year old made up in a day. It is neither reliable or notable, and is verging on the patent nonsense and potentially speediable. Leaving this on wikipedia for one day is one day too long, IMHO. Ohconfucius 03:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete For one, the referenced ISBNs are for another author/book-title altogether. I think you could contribute much more effectively in other ways to wikipedia instead of writing this rubbish. -- Regards Steve.Moulding 03:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the writing style; the author should write for uncyclopedia! --Bkkbrad 03:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not denying that it could be a hoax page, but at least give them a chance to back up the sources instead of forcing your fascist agendas down the public's throat! I ask you just to behave responsibly and give them a chance to back up their sources. End of discussion. dool325 03:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Dool325 needs to relax. No one here has a fascist agenda to my knowledge.  The creator of this page has shown bad faith by referencing books that do not exist in an obvious attempt to game the system.  No real reliable sources will be provided because if they existed they would have been used in the fist place. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete when the AfD expires, this article that would appear to fail WP:BIO even if the accomplishments listed were referenced. Jeepday 03:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Double-check The Bibliography of the article now references an exclusive interview with the author in question, Jake Felton, himself. Since the specific contents of the interview were never released, the argument you all have posed regarding faulty, non-existent sources has no backing seeing as you have absolutely no way to disprove the occurrence of said interview. Find some proof. magicdan25 04:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's not a verifiable source. Also, I noticed that your only edits on this AfD.  Welcome to Wikipedia! --Bkkbrad 04:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:V and WP:RS as to why an unpublished personal interview is not a source. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If I were to supply said interview, would you withdraw your complaint?

-- — GuidedByPavement (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * If the interview was published in a reliable source that met WP:RS then we would have one source. This would not meet WP:NOTE which requires multiple sources.  If multiple reliable source are provided then by all means I would change my vote to a keep. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, no, but I would love to read it; I'm honest when I say I like your writing style. --Bkkbrad 04:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact remains, you have no viable support to disprove Jake Felton and his legacy's existence. Because of this lack of evidence, deleting this article would only result in the deprivation of many Wiki readers to learn about a great, young thinker. It only seems just to allow the article to remain so the knowledge of his excellency can spread, and once such excellency does spread, concrete sources can be provided for you naysayers. magicdan25 04:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Irrelevent. The burden of proof is on the editor, not the reader.  Unless you can prove Jake Feldon's legacy, the article fails Wikipedia's polices. Resolute 05:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Magicdan, this is the wrong way around. Wikipedia does not exist to advance people's careers or bring "dark horses" to the public's attention, but rather to document the already known. We can't have articles created about every up-and-coming young thinker/writer/entrepreneur, for at least a couple of reasons:
 * For most of them, not enough verifiable information is available, so the article may fall into a state of inaccuracy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should not be allowed to lapse into an inaccurate state.
 * Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. That is, a person is included, or not, based on what that person has done so far, not on what they are poised to do in the future. For example, I may be planning to swim the English channel in record time, but until I actually get around to making the attempt (and succeeding), I am not eligible for inclusion.
 * --N Shar 05:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete at the very least until this dissertation is published. If and when that occurs (which I doubt it will), he might have a claim on notability. Until then, I have no objection to "the deprivation of many Wiki readers" from learning about someone who very possibly doesn't exist. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Unverifiable bio. Borderline nonsense Resolute 05:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm doing my best to assume good faith here, but it's rather difficult when this young man's dissertation is on both "the Study of Female Golf Course Architects in the Latter Portion of the Twentieth Century" (acclaimed for its "astonishing grammar"!) and "geriatric psychoanalysis," when he has contacts with Hildegard von Bingen (who lived in the 11th and 12th centuries), when his weather service has a higher accuracy than NOAA's and is acclaimed not only for its accuracy but its "spelling and grammar," when he is preparing to write a highly classified essay on the Civil War with the apparently non-existent Phillip Grudzina, and when his upcomming book is Jerry Panner and the Chamber of Mysteries. I say this is most likely a hoax. --N Shar 05:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Hoax. Maxamegalon2000 06:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per all the above. I deleted everything from the article that was clearly hoax material (e.g. the assertion that Hildegard was his "mentor") as well as the bogus source and irrelevant external link. - Dmz5  *Edits**Talk* 06:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment How did you determine that the biographical info was not a hoax? If you are going to remove most of the article, during a deletion debate, why not blank all of it? I suggest that it be left as submitted during the deletion debate, as a gesture of good faith. Otherwise it looks like gaming the system by blanking most of it so people see only a fraction of what was created. No reason the article creator could not revert to his version. Inkpaduta 18:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a judgement call. I deleted stuff that was obviously a hoax.  Bare biographical detail is not, and there has already been an assertion that the skibum thing exists.  Furthermore, there is plenty of precedent for taking out the egregiously problematic parts of an article during AfDs; in many cases, that is what gets them saved.  And if the creator reverts, I will revert back as vandalism.- Dmz5  *Edits**Talk* 03:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

stupid hoax, delete it now and stop wasting everyone's time with this trash. maybe now wouldn't be a great time to point out that the fact you are wasting your time trolling has nothing to do with my creation of the article. Do not delete. I have to say I agree with magicdan. There is no substantial proof that this is a hoax. Maybe its just that he isn't that well known to the international community. IKar00000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.95.131 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 8 February 2007
 * Delete stupid hoax, delete it now and stop wasting everyone's time with this trash. JuJube 09:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. There's really nothing more to say. --Dhartung | Talk 10:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It was an impolitic comment by JuJube, but I doubt that accusing anyone of trolling is really valid here. There have been any number of attempts to assume good faith on what is an increasingly obvious hoax, and as a general rule experienced contributors take a very dim view of attempted hoaxes. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Accusing anyone, you mean, except the article's editors.- Dmz5 *Edits**Talk* 14:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There's always that, yes. Although I'm never too fond of the term anyway, and vigorous defence of a hoax (after all, creative writing is something people feel defensive about on occasion) may not strictly be trolling. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It was impolite, yeah. I'm not apologizing, though, because I have an intense hatred of hoaxes, and reading this discussion page makes it all too obvious that it is one. JuJube 23:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable, and anyone who claims they can predict the weather with 99% accuracy has to be lying.  --UsaSatsui 15:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, anything lacking sources and references cannot be taken seriously in an encyclopedia Alf photoman 15:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Everyone DUBJAY04 17:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Hoax. Perhaps there is a home for the article and the comments of the person wanting to keep it in WP:BJAODN. Inkpaduta 17:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable. &rArr;    SWAT Jester    On Belay!  18:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (Interestingly, IP Address 69.248.95.131 is located in East Brunswick, NJ) Steve.Moulding 00:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Very well. Then he's not notable.  --UsaSatsui 00:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * no substantial proof that this is a hoax? Really? So a 15-year-old founding a weather forecast system with "a near 99% accuracy" (a statistic which would be unlikely even if he were a professional weather forecaster) doesn't seem a little bit odd to you? Not the fact that his mentor is one Hildegard von Bingen, who died in 1179 and very probably never met a golf course architect of either gender in her life? Not the fact that he's editing an essay by an author who (according to another contributor to this discussion) doesn't seem to exist? Not the fact that his novel bears an uncanny similarity in title to a very well-known book which already exists? Not the fact that his forthcoming dissertation is on a topic which comes very close to being nonsensical? Not the fact that his "grammar" is praised to the highest heavens and nothing else? Simply put, there's no substantial (or insubstantial) proof that this is anything but an increasingly obvious and increasingly tiresome hoax. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is apparently a hoax, agreed on that. - Denny 00:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - appears to be a hoax. The nominators disagreeing with deletion have also either failed to provide  verifiable evidence that it is not, or appear to strongly misunderstand Wikipedia guidelines regarding inclusion and the concept of "burden of proof".  --Haemo 02:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * comment the burden of proof requirement is at WP:V and says The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Jeepday 03:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete this article has no merits. Rkevins 08:35, 13 February 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.