Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Liberty

Jesse Liberty was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. 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 to keep the article.


 * Doesn't appear noteworthy enough for Wikipedia inclusion; strikes me as a vanity page. Edits made since I listed the page have made it much more wiki-worthy and much less vanity-sounding. Keep. - jredmond 16:41, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Delete. The user even admits to being Jesse Liberty in the edit summary here. --fvw* 16:42, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
 * The biography proposed policy, which says in part "Biographies on the following people may be included in Wikipedia...Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more." My sales figures to date approximate 1,000,000 copies sold, spread out over a dozen books. One of my books alone sold over 250,000 copies. I've been published in various magazines and newspapers, not all of them technical (some are political).  I'm not trying to be defensive or boastful, just explaining why I don't think I'm not too far off the mark.  I would not have created an entry for myself, except to serve as a cross reference for the List_of_bisexuals which requires a pointer page. It is not my intention to use these pages for self-aggrendizement nor for advertising, and I'm happy to modify my pages if that would be helpful. --jesse
 * Sorry, Jesse, autobiographies are also unacceptable. Get somebody else to write it for you, in an NPOV manner.  Delete.  RickK 20:30, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite so as to not be an autobiography. Noteworthy and not vanity. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 21:27, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity. Jayjg 00:16, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Follows policy regarding notable authors. If there is vanity, then we clean it up. func (talk) 08:53, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It was updated, presumably to be more objective. I have no problems with the changes --jesse
 * Keep. Appears noteworthy enough.  -- [[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 17:26, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Definitely noteworthy enough, as any web search will show. – Udzu 00:44, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Vanity. Marcius Portius Cato (the Elder) did say "I would much rather have men ask why I have no statue than why I have one."  But Cato didn't have to erect his own statue. --ExplorerCDT 02:03, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: I thought that was Marcus Aurelius who said that.  Hmm.  Geogre 02:16, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Aurelius and Cato had a few centuries between them, last I checked. --ExplorerCDT 02:23, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, well, I did know that, you know. I meant "hmm, learned something on VfD."  Plutarch attributes it to Cato. Geogre 00:56, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - I read his blog. I read his books. Do a google search, you get like 50,000 hits.  Hegemon 04:19, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment - Plese note, Hegemon is a friend who was visiting my site. I just noticed she left a vote, but it is hardly objective. You may want to ignore it. jesse 19:42, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please note also that two people I don't know, who did not vote, did take the time to edit the page. Whether or not this page is kept,k it has been a fascinating experience. jesse 16:14, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, this individual is clearly noteworthy. Wikipedia is not paper, bytes are cheap. GRider 22:19, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, noteworthy enough, and cheers to Jliberty for handling this reasonably. &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 01:30, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Might need some work, but is valid article according to policy previously mentioned. Keep. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 21:35, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks NPOV to me, but it may have been changed since the comments above. -- Chuq 22:23, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Current content appears to be NPOV. However, given the article's origins as an autobiography and your continuing choice to edit the article, I would prefer to remain consistent with our no autobiographies rule.  Would you consider moving this full content to your user page?  Rossami (talk) 23:32, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Which rule are we breaking? "If you create a new article about yourself it will most likely be listed on votes for deletion and a heavy debate will ensue. That does not mean it will be deleted, of course, but there are people who feel strongly that you should at the very least not start articles about yourself, no matter how important you consider yourself."  This person shouldn't have started an article on himself.  But just like Jimbo, he did.  Doesn't mean we should delete it, just like we didn't delete Jimmy Wales.  Taking Auto-biography as an edict to delete any article which was started by the user himself, even if it has been improved and fixed, is just silly.  The page doesn't even say that, and certainly doesn't intend that.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 12:36, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * No. I don't mean to be difficult, but my editing has been to improve the page and meake it as NPOV as possible. Policy says that a consensus to remove of 2/3 is required. I make it that more than 2/3 says to keep the page. I think the page is valid, and I can't imagine what the problem is with the subject of the page fixing it up now and again. I'm new here, and as I say I'll go with the consensus, but no, I have no interest in making it a user page; it is valid as a wikipedia entry or it isn't.  Thanks for your consideration. jesse 01:37, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

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