Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorenz Diener


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 04:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Lorenz Diener

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested A7. I can find no reliable sources (Google search parameters "-twitter -wikipedia -myspace -facebook -linkedin -twit -pipl -sourceforge -yahoo -google") to back up the claims of importance made in the first paragraph. Whose Your Guy (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment What Google search?
 * Strong Keep Try googling 'halcy', you'll get much more, then. Do your research before putting articles up for deletion. LiteralKa (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment There's still not a lot (Google search parameters "halcy" -twitter -myspace -youtube -facebook -linkedin -blog -blogspot -journal -whitepages) of reliable sources there that I could find. Whose Your Guy (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Complaint When will you start using valid links and not just fake wiki articles to back up your claims? LiteralKa (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Do you even know what a reliable source is, dude? BTW - I converted my redlinks to actual text so you could see what I used to weed out the UNreliable sources. Whose Your Guy (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment You have serious issues with recognizing notability, don't you? LiteralKa (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently the same can be said of you regarding reliable sources. Whose Your Guy (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is new to me, news stories, biographies, and books aren't reliable! LiteralKa (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you guys noticed that the paragraph about his connection to the Hells Angels story is a fake, right? Neither the age (22 vs. 26) nor the place (Karlsruhe vs. Munich) matches. --84.160.54.65 (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC) — 84.160.54.65 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Strong Keep I agree with Literalka, there seems to be a lot on this person. 69.232.205.201 (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC) — 69.232.205.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete BLP1E. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I cannot find reliable sources either, and the Jamie Alexander and Jeffrey Bailey sources are nowhere to be found. We need to keep in mind that searching for someone's screen name and finding a lot of results is not an indication of that person's notability; rather, it is an indication of how active that person is on the Internet. It appears to me that Mr. Diener is notable for only one event, so the article should be deleted. See also: Notability (people). « D. Trebbien ( talk ) 20:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I could not find a name in any of the "puppy" articles, so I've removed that as a BLP violation until someone can clarify. References 2 and 3 appear to be imaginary; I could not find mentions of the articles or authors.  The claim of "computer scientist" as a freshman CS major seems to be an agressive claim.  Removing that, there's absolutely nothing here.  Kuru   (talk)  20:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notability is satisfied. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Withdrawn. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're aware this is a discussion, correct? Could you expand on why you feel there is any notability here?  Kuru   (talk)  22:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep It's not yet mentioned in the article but he's had successes in the demoscene as well . Lordgilman (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that a forum? Whose Your Guy (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess you could call Pouet a forum. However, the entries (and ratings!) are real and you can probably dig Lorenz's group's entries up on the demoscene party host's website. Lordgilman (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Popular on a forum" is not helpful. Reliable sources are what we're looking for.  Thanks.  Kuru   (talk)  22:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Please read my entire post! Lorenz isn't "popular on a forum," he did well at Breakpoint  a demoscene party big enough to have its own Wikipedia article.  Please please please read up on this stuff or stay out of the discussion!Lordgilman (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I certainly can't fault your efficiency in completely ignoring Pouët's main purpose. LiteralKa (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Pouet is one of the most reliable demoscene websites, nearly every demo production is listed on there, with download/youtube links and information about their creators and any awards that they have won; and those are elaborately staged, kind of like the programming nerds' Oscars or the like. Assembly and other demo parties are huge deals in the video game industry. Headhunters for game companies go to those things looking for new talent. But that's getting a bit beside the point, and this is an absurd discussion regardless. (But amusing!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.212.100 (talk) 00:44, 15 August 2010 UTC — 24.29.212.100 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep. Diener's impact on Western imageboard culture cannot be overstated; it's unfortunate that this isn't better documented in traditional media, but that's to be expected, given 2channel's emphasis on anonymity. In addition to this, he is well known in the demoscene, as per Lordgilman's comment. Cairnarvon (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Super. Can you point to any reliable sources that support this? I'd love to simply take your word for it, but it's not something we can do here. Thanks.  Kuru   (talk)  23:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Attention, everybody: What the flying fuck? Halcy (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC) [L. Diener]
 * You... sockpuppet!! (Kidding.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.212.100 (talk) 00:44, 15 August 2010 UTC — 24.29.212.100 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment - After looking around a bit more, the editor who added most of the bio seems to be deliberately faking references and adding hoax material. He has admitted to "playing" here and here.  The subject denies the accomplishments falsely attributed to him here and here. I've asked "Literalka" to provide more details previously, and he has apparently declined.  Since this is a BLP, I've trimmed the article back to sourced information, which leaves little.  There appears to be offline coordination; I've added the appropriate tag to this discussion.    Kuru   (talk)  18:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I would like to point out that I did not write "most of the bio", as the above editor falsely claims. LiteralKa (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I would also like to point out the fact that the above argument is riddled with Original Research, just because the subject "denies" the claims does not make it fact. I would assume good faith before resorting to such underhanded tactics. LiteralKa (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? Here is your contribution at the start of this AFD.  I am patiently waiting for you to support your additions as requested several times.  My assumption of good faith is in not immediately and indefinitely blocking your account for intentionally adding hoax material to a biography of a living person. Now would be a good time to do that.  Kuru   (talk)  20:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? Because here is the actual bio being added. LiteralKa (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Additionally, calling it a "hoax" is not assuming good faith. Oh, and "several times" being once. While I was banned. LiteralKa (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with literalka and the other comments about good faith. It is hard to find writing on the Anonymous BBS scene because, well, everyone wants to be anonymous.68.50.12.75 (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And most people here aer anonymous as well, so what's your point? The problem with "underground" stuff is that they don't get the significant coverage that other mainstreamers do.  In this particular case, the subject himself !voted delete which means he expressly doesn't want an article here.  And as far as calling something a hoax bad faith, wasn't the evidence clear that false information was being applied to the article? Whose Your Guy (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't even try to compare anonymity here to anonymity on an imageboard. LiteralKa (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. And the pictures. Although I must say, he's looking sharp these days. (LiteralKa, you're so busted.) humblefool&reg; 20:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed I will be "busted" for hurting someone's wikifeelings, no doubt. LiteralKa (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the CC license for images only cover the images that are actually IN the Commons? Whose Your Guy (talk) 20:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Read the bottom of his website (nice fact checking). LiteralKa (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. I'm an inclusionist by nature, but this article fails WP:BIO and WP:ORG. I can't seem to find any verifiable source which defines how successful his site is, which would suggest if its not successful, then notability falls back onto him, and as he is a student, will fail WP:BIO. The name Tanasinn was a 4Chan meme, which I think started a 2-3 years ago, so provides more ghits than would otherwise be attributed to the Tanasinn site. scope_creep (talk) 00:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Tanasinn has nothing at all to do with 4chan. LiteralKa (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment So just a straight forward black and white argument, that Tanasinn has nothing to do with 4chan. Do a search linking 4Chan and/or 2Chan and Tanasinn and google will return information about a 4Chan/2Chan meme that was kicking about a few years. Different boards, but the meme was kicking about all over the shop several years ago, started at 2Chan I think, and it is that, that is generating all the ghits for this Tanasinn.scope_creep (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. Am I missing something? The article itself claims this person is a student who created an online community. That is it. How does this make one notable?Willbennett2007 (talk) 22:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How does this make one NOT notable? TalentlessTroll (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources establishes notability. Whose Your Guy (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can't find independent and reliable sources that demonstrate notability. Is the OLC "Tanasinn" even notable enough for its own page? If not, I can't see how its creator would be. P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 22:29, 19 August 2010 (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.