Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Jeandell


 * 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 Since the creator wants it gone and noone disagrees... Spartaz Humbug! 21:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Jason Jeandell

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

Procedural nomination: persistent repost by the subject of the article following speedy deletion. Possibly meets WP:PROF Skomorokh  22:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_University_of_Delaware_people —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjeandell (talk • contribs) 22:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete: Wikipedia is not about shameless self-promotion per WP:SOAP, especially when it comes to non-notable individuals. The subject does not meet the basics of WP:PROF or WP:N. According to LexisNexis, only one article mentions "Jason Jeandell" and that was an announcement placed in the society section of a local newspaper by family members regarding his impending nuptials with one "Nicole Lyn Miller." Beyond that press release, I couldn't find anything suggesting notability in the print media. JSTOR contains no academic journal articles published by Jeandell, nor any mentions of his work. Google News and Factiva also make no mention of a "Jason Jeandell." Finally, Worldcat cites no books or citations linked to "Jason Jeandell." In short, "Jason Jeandell" is not a notable subject for an encyclopedia entry. Sorry folks, J Readings (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete per WP:COI and WP:AUTO. And if he's reposting speedied material, then salt as well.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Jason Jeandell, "Improving Mental Maps: Sequencing Teacher Instruction Verbally and Visually", 2003 http://delcat.udel.edu/F/?find_code=WRD&request=Jason+Jeandell&func=find-b —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.197.230.115 (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails to establish notability. I love how the link to the newspaper goes to his wedding announcement.   Corvus cornix  talk  23:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete under G4 and Salt to prevent recreation. The link above is to his thesis, which is apparently available at the University of Delaware library. This does not establish notability; it only establishes that he wrote a thesis for a Master's Degree. The references in the article include a wedding announcement and a Geocities page. He doesn't begin to approach the qualifications required in WP:PROF.  Horologium  (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. Nothing by the subject (and no citations of his work) in GoogleScholar, WebOfScience or Scopus. Clearly fails WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Per the excellent research of various editors above. Blatant COI problems. Debate (talk) 06:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable local teacher. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. There was a recent disruptive edit by User:70.110.143.113 who removed all the votes in this AfD. I have restored them. Nsk92 (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This episode appears to have been more than random valndalism. Before removing all the votes (which were all delete votes) here, the same IP editor added Jason Jeandell back to List of University of Delaware people, see (which I now reversed). In fact, we might be dealing with sockpuppetry here since the WHOIS results for 151.197.230.115 and for 70.110.143.113 are almost the same. Nsk92 (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I opt then to delete my own entry, since I have the right as its creator! Obviously I have found that adding any information to this site, not just autobiographic, is pointless since examination of it is carried out by a committee of individuals with their own agendas. I have made viable edits to wikipedia before on other articles that were legitimate additions with references that have since disappeared. Hell, you people are even making comments about stuff added to my entry by other users (ie. I didn't put the wedding reference on it nor did I tag my own home page in that manner). Besides, as a "notable" teacher in the state of Delaware (contrary to your opinions), we don't advise our students to use wikipedia anyway. So thank you and good night.User:Jjeandell
 * You don't own your page. I've reverted your deletion. I don't see what difference it makes, as the page is going to be deleted by an admin anyway.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the last time I checked we lived in a democracy in the US where things are owned and can be sold or removed at any time (see property). If Wikipedia is freely admitting to be a a Communist site according to your link, then I am justified! I decide my own destiny! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjeandell (talk • contribs) 19:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And the last time I checked, Wikipedia wasn't a democracy! (Although given Wikipedia's pro-atheist slant, I wouldn't be surprised if it was Communist--joke).--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would also like to point out what everyone else already knows: You don't own the page just because you're the subject/main contributor, Wikipedia isn't a democracy and blanking the page is considered vandalism, and repeating it will only get you blocked. Understand now?--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Stubbornness: Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable—you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such. ...So from what I read, I can delete my own and it isn't vandalism!
 * Well my friend, I can read/quote Wikipedia manuals too...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VAND#NOT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-3rr (Jjeandell (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC))


 * Opposed by everyone else? Last time I checked, you're the only one doing this. So if anyone's being stubborn, its you. Furthermore, what you are doing is blanking the page with no other reason than that you feel that you are entitled to do so because its yours. This IS vandalism.
 * If you want, I can notify the admins about this, and chances are they're going to agree with me.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Might not be a bad idea. Blanking a page (other than user's own user page or talk page or user's sandox) is vandalism, and is listed as no 1 example of vandalism in WP:VAND. Nsk92 (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it really needs that -- the page is going to be deleted (if I were an admin I would close the discussion now with a WP:SNOW delete), so it's not really being disruptive to the project by having the page wiped. Since that's the main reason why we have an anti-vandalism policy, I don't think it's necessary and will have the primary effect of alienating someone who could potentially be a future contributor to the project.  If we can avoid biting the newcomers, might as well delay as much as possible. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It would indeed be the best if some admin did a speedy close for this AfD as this would presumably resolve most problems. Perhaps posting a note at AN/I is the best way of achieving this. Nsk92 (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I stated as much on the article's talk page. I agree with Myke Cuthbert. The AfD is usually a five-day affair, but in this case, it might not be a bad idea to close this discussion sooner per WP:SNOW considering the subject clearly does not meet the notability criteria for a Wikipedia encyclopedia entry. Mr. Jeandell, we all realize that you are new to Wikipedia, so it would be unfair to expect you to understand most of our policies from the very beginning. That said, I do hope that you decide to edit Wikipedia, study its policies and guidelines, and make a productive contribution to the encyclopedia's content. Best regards, J Readings (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate the more kinder, gentler explanations of the previous 2 users (Myke and J). Much more appropriate. A snowball sounds fine to me. However, I am still going to be a lil alienated. As I stated before, I made useful additions to this encylopedia before (in forms of additional info and news references) that have been since deleted with no explanation. (Jjeandell (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC))
 * You haven't exactly been civil yourself. Although I will admit that I have become wary of autobiographers on Wikipedia and tend to be more snappier than usual.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2008 (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.