Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KRIS POTTS


 * 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 --Bubba hotep 20:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Kris Potts

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod, previously speedied as A7. Author claims notability. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * comment He might be notable, though it is hard to tell from this article. It really should be taken in hand by somebody else or started over. DGG 03:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless rewritten because the article right now is nothing but promotion and a gross NPOV violation. NawlinWiki 03:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Rub it out for someone else to start again. If not COI, then a terrible sycophancy piece. Not wanted in either case. -- RHaworth 06:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Reads like a possible copyvio text dump, though I wasn't able to confirm that. In any case, it's a NPOV mess. --NMChico24 06:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * delete Might well be - probably is - wiki-notable, so my heart says keep, but my head says article is unsalvageable as above. Springnuts 06:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - may well be notable but is nothing like a wikipedia article at present. Maybe reduce to stub and recommend the author(s) expand it slowly. --J2thawiki 10:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or reduce to stub as J2thawiki's helpful suggestion above, which would keep my heart and my head in harmony. Springnuts 10:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the various pieces of feedback.

It's not clear to me what is "promotion" in the article, since the bio covers all sorts of notable events and experiences, etc., and states that his video is no longer in release and he works in non-profit work as a chaplain. There is no reference to web sites or anything else that seems to be "promoting."

As Lloyd Bentsen might say, "He's no John Kennedy," but the bio is intended to provide basic factual information about him and cites those who he worked with, wrote and reported about, produced for, etc., as assertions of notability.

I don't know what a "dump" is, but presume it means something like a cut and paste. Clearly, given all the citations to published works, etc., it is not that. In fact, it was written off line (to avoid being dumped by a limited access ISP and keep a phone line open) and submitted and corrected following various views and reviews, as well as updates to sources following previous comments about assertions of notability.

I respect the purpose of Wikipedia, but let's not forge that the company head was just on network news telling the world that it is good that colleges are banning it as a citable research source because of its "grass roots" provenance (my phrase, not his) that is part of the new interactive age. It seems to me that the standards being asserted here, while very helpful, are so strict as to make it impossible for any but the highest of academics to put anything here. If that were truly the source of all of Wiki's content, it seems unlikely that, for all its value, it is the subject of such great discredit right now.

Also, while there is much said about providing verifiable sources, etc., I've read dozens of pages here that provide no such material, links, etc., that is provided in this bio. Nothing says this guy will ever win a Nobel Prize or deserves any great praise or honor, but let's not forget the Albert Einstein was a sixth grade drop-out who was, accordin to his teachers, destined for nothing. And this guy's no Einstein, but we shouldn't forget that the true print encyclopedia's are filled with thousands of people none of us knew, but learned about and came to appreciate, perhaps respect, because someone took the time to write something about them and find what's notable. This guy's been in the Kremlin, at KGB Headquarters, with Billy Graham for his only Soviet crusade, etc. That doesn't make this guy famous like Graham, but certainly notable. And he's a widely published journalist, with no book or other products being hawked in the entry or anywhere else that I know of. This is clearly of intrinsic value, not remotely commercial in orientation. And it's not asking for money, donations, sales, anything...

Cute neologism with the ol' "sycophancy" comment. But stating facts with clarity and citations is not "sycophancy," it's just providing some depth and context. The purpose of Wiki, as I understood it, was to add or modify based on personal knowledge or research of citations, not to blast and attack someone else's work with cute, pithy, Roger Ebert-esque sound bites. Please be as respectful with the comments as we're told to be with our replies to those who suggest deletion, modification, edits, etc. [By the way, as I noted earlier, my ISP just booted me while I wrote this, so I had to log back on in the hope that Wiki would take this when I hit "save".]

Also, the suggestion that it be added to slowly seems contraindicated by the fact that it was previously deleted for being too short. Now you say make it short and add to it later. Since this isn't Al Gore or Charlton Heston, too little made/makes folks like you say "who is this and why is he notable?" So an article answering those questions is completed and submitted to resolve such concerns and it is blasted for having that depth of content, assertions, proofs, citations and links, etc. In that sense, therre seems to be no way to win.

Also, the suggestion that someone else restart it... Just who do you recommend? Someone who doesn't know the subject or sources? Or, as another of you said, someone who just doesn't care for or like this person/profile/article? It's like asking Nancy Pelosi to write a profile of George Bush! Or Eve to write about Al Gore? (Who doesn't know Al from Adam! Though that's not the right analogy, aster all. I'm just not as quick a wit as "Mr. Sycophancy," I guess.)

Finally, I've found many wonderfully written and other woefully written pieces here on Wikipedia, but I don't figure that it is my place to insist that in order for each and every one of them to stay here they must be written in such a way as to conform to my very own personal and, I admit, narrow need to "keep my [very own] heart and my head in harmony." That is the joy of perusing encyclopedias and Wikipedia -- to challenge and push and test and expand and enrich our hearts and minds. I'm not saying that this does this, but it is far from the sort of trash we've all seen all over the web/net, and its example of someone who has done much in his life to report on others in the more traditional media and served others as a chaplain/missionary is certainly worthy of being considered by those who are interested in such things and might be even slightly inspired by it, as I was.

Please, as Rodney King once said, to much grumbling, "Can't we all just get along?" (Or, as quoted by others, "We can all get along.")

I'm new to the Wikipedia process, but hope that I've slid fast up the learning curve -- and ask your forgiveness to the extent that I'm not entirely up to snuff yet.

Just count me a "Sycophancy Pansy" (not interested in hawking anyone but trying to find ways to get people to think about a lot of others. (By the way, that's what this guy did: tell stories about others. I'm telling his, sorry of an effort as mine has been.)

Thanks for your patience.

P.S. Even I had difficulty reading it once it was done, but not for style and content reasons. I found/find the very narrow/thin font on Wiki almost insufferable.
 * Comment - wow. I think your comment above demonstrates the biggest problem with the article - it's so long and wordy. As you say, even you have difficulty reading it once done. Other long articles such as George W. Bush are readable because they are broke up into sections. As you are new to wikipedia you should have spent some time looking at how other articles are written rather than copying and pasting in so much text.


 * I'm not aware the article has been previously deleted for being too short. Looking at the logs,, it was deleted on 28th March for "csd a7; no assertion of notability".


 * My overall feeling is that, as it currently stands, the article is not useful. It has lots of sources but they are pasted at the bottom - references should be placed next to the facts that they are sources for. --J2thawiki 13:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have done some limnited wikification and cleanup. If the author of the article cleans it up further, so that it is possible to detrmine which specific citation supports which statement, and if it is trimmed a good deal this might be worth keeping. Weak Keep if and only if significantly improved promptly. DES (talk) 22:02, 2 April 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.