Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Xuna


 * 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. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

John Xuna

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Vanity piece, written and edited by the candidate himself. He does not appear to have received coverage from independent reliable sources, so he fails WP:BIO. He is an unsuccessful candidate for office so fails WP:POLITICIAN. He has written self-published material and taught school, but he does not appear to meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion here. MelanieN (talk) 04:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete WP:G11 - ridiculous article. Clear self-promo.  —Мандичка YO 😜 04:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Not an expert on this, but it seems to me there are quite a few ignorant and arrogant editors out there. Do whatever you have to do, but you are wrong! 1) I DID NOT CREATE THIS PAGE "JOHN XUNA", someone else did, many years ago, honestly I do not know who. Although I had to make changes to it, three years ago, because it was not accurate.

2) "Vanity piece" ... you do not know what you are talking about? If you have an issue with my books because of being the author Atheist, say so.  "The Ignorance of Faith" (Amazon, Barnes and Noble).

3) "Unsuccessful candidate for office?", I am the CURRENT Democratic candidate for CD18 FL (please visit www.JXuna.com), and I have been a past candidate for CD22 FL (GE 2002)(please visit www.Xuna.com). "Unsuccessful" is shortsighted and hurtful. What a bunch of arrogant and disrespectful editors, it seems. You will be reported for your lack of tact.

4) The "science beacons" are online, and the web links are given for you to check any you wish.

5) The corrections I made a couple of days ago, I would appreciate if you email those to me, regardless of accepted the revision or not. After those corrections the page was quite precise and correct. Please send it to Xuna@MSN.com.

6) "Ridiculous article" ... based on what criteria?

7) The pioneering books in "peak oil" can be corroborated with the evidence presented in www.OilDepletion.com and www.PetrolSOS.com. If you care to check.


 * You don't get to cite your own self-published websites about the books as proof that you're notable for writing them. Notability on Wikipedia is conferred by reliable, independent sources writing about you, not by simply being able to cite your own self-published content about yourself as proof that you exist. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

8) The copyrights on ZUET (Zeroing in Underground Energy Technologies www.ZUET.com) are there on the web, as well as pictures from my lectures at Harvard and M.I.T.

9) First Atheist to run "openly for the US Congress", please go to the link of article from award-winning Bob Norman that was offered. In the part that you did not accept (edited yesterday, I believe), I provided information about ever Atheists who sat in a chair of Congress (3 of them), indicating they disclose being non-believers after leaving office, or after having been elected, and not while campaigning for office. That information is public knowledge, even appears in your Wikipedia, but you can check it in the US House and Senate websites. If elected, I would be the first atheist who openly campaigned as such. If you do not like it because you are religious, that's your problem, not mine.

10) If I knew how to properly edit and improve that page (although the changes I did yesterday seemed to have improved the professionalism of that page) I would have done that long time ago. It is embarrassing the comments that you have displayed on the top of that page, since -at least- 5 years ago.

11) I am not editor, and my vernacular is Spanish. Yet, I am one of the $upporter$ to Wikipedia, because I have used it a lot, and it is an excellent service. Yet, as I can see, there is some childish arrogance going wild there.  Grow up kids!  :O(

John Xuna (talk) 05:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC) .
 * Delete - I'm not seeing any coverage. - If you want to article preserved, you might want to take 10 minutes to read over  Notability and Notability_(people), then come back and make your argument based on those policies. NickCT (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete:- fails WP:POLITICIAN., sorry for any condescending tone in the 's rationale but kindly wait until you becomes notable and someone with no WP:COI who knows how to write an encyclopedic article will write about you here. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 14:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment User:John Xuna, I'm sorry if you were offended by my nomination. But please read the links WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO to find out what Wikipedia requires for a person to have an article here. You should also read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, since Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves (though it is not forbidden). The article was originally written by a User:Kxuna, a single-purpose account whose only edits were related to you, so you can see why I thought there was a connection to you. In any case, that's not the reason I have nominated it for deletion; the problem is that a subject has to meet certain criteria to have an article in this international encyclopedia. Being a NOMINEE for public office does not qualify you; if you are ELECTED then of course you will have an article. The information about atheists who "sat in a chair of Congress" is not relevant, since at this point you are not in Congress. I'm sure your books and activism have a following, but simply being an author or an activist is not enough for an article here; we have to see writing ABOUT you or your books or your activism by independent, third-party, reliable sources such as newspapers and magazines. As for your recent additions which were deleted (not by me), you can see them by clicking on the "history" button at the top of the article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What a thoughtfully written explanation MelanieN. NickCT (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I also have to ask User:John Xuna about the statement "I am one of the $upporter$ to Wikipedia". This comes across like you are implying that you should have an article because you donate money to Wikipedia. Donating money to Wikipedia does not mean that you get a page. You may not have meant for this statement to come across, but the thing is that the vast majority of people who bring up donations in a deletion discussion do so because they are either directly or indirectly stating that this means that they merit a page and that if the page is deleted, they will stop donating to Wikipedia. You cannot buy an article and any statements about donations in a deletion discussion will come across very, very badly. I would also recommend that you not call other uses "childish" because this assumes bad faith on their behalf and can be seen as an WP:ADHOMINEM attack, another thing that is a very poor idea to state in an AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN, also it's so promotional that it's an WP:ADVMASQ. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 00:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Snow delete subject is not notable. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A non-winning candidate for office does not qualify for a Wikipedia article on the basis of the candidacy itself — if they didn't win the election and thereby hold a notable office, then the only other path to a Wikipedia article is to demonstrate and source that they qualify for some other reason (e.g. holding a different notable office, or having preexisting notability in a different field of endeavour.) But no other credible claim of notability has been demonstrated here, and the sourcing (which is almost all primary) isn't even approaching the suburbs of the volume it would take to earn the "notable because coverage" loophole. It's certainly possible that he might qualify for a Wikipedia article on the basis of the scientific work instead of the candidacy — but as written, that hasn't been demonstrated or sourced. Delete; no prejudice against recreation if a good version can be written and sourced that rests on the energy policy work instead of the failed candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:TNT. Even if he ran for office, that is run of the mill and fails thus fails WP:POLITICIAN; the only exception has not been proven by  significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources.  The article claims he's the only such and such person to have such office -- as if running for office and getting on the ballot are the same as holding public office.  For a state of its size, Florida has quite minimal requirements for signature on petitions.  I'm something of an academic expert on energy law, and to be blunt, I've never heard of this person nor of his work on peak oil.  Regardless of whether the subject created it, his advocacy actually harms the legitimacy of the article.  Its existence continues to hurt Wikipedia's reputation as something any fool can edit.  I agree with, no relation. Bearian (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2015 (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.