Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Kinchen


 * 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   speedy delete per CSD G3. Article is a hoax. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 19:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Kinchen

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This was originally speedy deleted under CSD A7. DRV overturned, finding that an assertion of notability was present. Still, delete, given concerns over a lack of reliable sources and notability. Xoloz (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete; this is absolute vanispamcruftizement. If WP:BIO cast a shadow, it would not fall upon the article.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep; I don't see this as a vanity piece or an advertisement but a statement of historical note. Notoriety is prevalent here and while many non information systems people may find it useless to note. I.S. people find this a worthy piece of information especially when you consider the potential for future development by this persons research. This person's writing or this person's discoveries or this persons accomplishments are all part of the social time period and are noteworthy in thier weight. It seems to often that people here immediately attempt to strike down any page they see pass before thier eyes in a review. Rather then Witch hunt an article and play high inquisitor in the inquisition. Lets all try to look at the article as a simple article of minor merit. It does have merit and while the merit does not appear great to some, it is at the very least notable and should remain. So I vote it gets kept. &mdash; Castawayred (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not even taking into account the obvious problems with notability, the article reads like an attempt at promotion, or self-promotion. It is entirely unsourced, and some of the assertions are completely false.  It just so happens that I am very much involved in postgres development, and I've never heard or seen a reference to "The Farmer", which does not make that monicker "widely known" by any stretch of the imagination. Indeed, a quick google search returns no results of associations online between "The Farmer" and postgres (beyond this very article and a number of farmers that use postgres).  Association between the two names ["Kevin Kinchen" "The Farmer"] returns no relevant link beyond, again, this article.  Hardly "widely known".  &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ... and "Kinchen has published more than 300,000 works of poetry and prose"? That would mean he would have had to publish over 25 works per day since the day he was born.  Surely thou jest!  &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ... "Kinchen was quoted", with unspecified source, and again only googlable instance of that quote is this article. ... "Craven Writers Art of the Century Award" doesn't seem to exist outside the article either. &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep; I don't know, I kind of like the piece. I vote it gets kept. As for proof, I suppose you could read one of my white papers. You could test it out and try it for yourself which is absolutely provable.You could contact a reference, IE call Postgresql and ask them of the possibility. Perhaps you might even google Kevin Kinchen or yahoo my name. At the very least I have accomplished the super-database. And all of the poetic works. So in keeping with the trend and since I do get a vote, I vote for myself. 1 vote for me. and also, it seems Coren is dead set against this article, take a breath man, relax, it's all good. You seem to be lashing out. As to the farmer, my #1 fan it seems used my blog name. As to associating them your an odd one aren't you. Why not just Kevin Kinchen with nothing else. But then again I tried kevin kinchen and farmer and of the 1,567,876 results that returned, I didn't honestly look, wow that's a lot to look through to lash out at an article. Try Kevin Kinchen and poetry, or use my pen name, K. Kelly. Look in the library of congress, check out my web page, or just visit some of the links that come up. Call any place I have worked before and you will find out I rarely sleep, keeping with that I get bored easy and have been known to write a few hundred at a time. I really have a natural talent for it. Yes, 300,126. In what way is that assertations false? Please prove that because I can prove the poetry and I can prove the abilities of postgres. If you have to try it, try it, remember when you make your partitions to use multiple schemas so that they don't overload your structure and make as a simple test a table creation script in a function that builds tables till your system crashes. Even on a workstation you should arrive into the millions. Also, please don't take it personal, it looks like you are. Craven Creative Writers, that brings back memories though I live in washington state now and that is in NC. You could always email them and ask, did you think to before making your comment? Please stop just accusing before you follow through with your research, this really is like an inquisition and you are dead set on following it through, let it go man.  Personally I dont think anyone who has posted so far should post again based on the fact it seems more of an argument of a personal nature than a review of the page. Can't we all just get along? Anyone who would like to comment on the impossibility of postgres partitioning and growing into the millions. Just because you haven't done it yet, doesn't mean it isnt true... look up benchmarks or ask me on "my" discussion page and I will give you step by step instruction to reproduce... because after all, thats where "this" discussion belongs. Well now you have "My" 2 cents. Have fun.. &mdash; Kevin.Kinchen (talk) 11:01, 17 December 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.