Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matze Schmidt


 * 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 of the debate was userfy. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Matze Schmidt
Delete self-written vanity about software programmer/artist. This is the second posting under this title by the same user; the first I speedy deleted as a hoax rewrite of Jaromil. Postdlf 19:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Why was Jaromils own writing not deleted? See -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jaromil&action=history. Matze Schmidt 20:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I would have if it was a hoax rewrite of yours instead of the converse. List if for deletion as well if you think it is also vanity, but to my eyes at least it appears alright.  Postdlf 20:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Mh, this is no convincing manner from my point of view. Why is a so called hoax-writing the reason for not deleting another self-written vanity - namely Jaromil's? And: I rewrote the article Matze Schmidt, so there is no motive for another deletion. Matze Schmidt 21:14, 20 January 2006 (GMT+1)
 * Others have raised the issue of vanity on his talk page, and I also don't like the fact that he wrote it himself. However, as the author of software that we have articles about, he's probably notable enough to keep.  Once again, if you disagree, list Jaromil for deletion, and I'll consider your rationale and vote appropriately.
 * Your first post was a hoax because all you did was take his article, change the name to your own, and add "did not" wherever it said "did." Your second post doesn't appear to assert any notable accomplishments that would qualify you for an article.  Postdlf 20:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Aha, no "notable accomplishments". And you decided that I/Matze Schnmidt am/is not qualified for an article on Wikipedia, right? This is beyond your function I guess. What the IS the "right quality", what are the right skills to have an article on WP and why should I start a deletion of Jaromil to get the logic right between the one and the other article? Matze Schmidt 21:27, 20 January 2006 (GMT+1)


 * I believe that this non-Edit war is a good example for explaining the logic and structure of an encyclopedia and of WP itself: If you argue that WP has already articles about Jaromil's software and take this for proof of his article about himself, the structure of the logic is _one article supports and proofs the other_ in an 'endless' chain or net. But to start a series of articles (chain or net) has yet another reason or basis, and this basis is outside the Wikipedia! It is based in the imaginations of authors about a person or works of this person. Now "author of works that we have articles about" is not a thing outside the system of WP, it is only to find inside the network of the texts. So the inside of WP and the outside of WP are connected in relationships of persons called authors and text related to texts about authors. Matze Schmidt 21:44, 20 January 2006 (GMT+1)

'This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!' Johnleemk | Talk 15:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * the content can be moved to User:MatzeSchmidt or deleted. --Melaen 16:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfy and Delete nn enough to justify keeping this vanity project Eusebeus 17:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfy and delete per Eusebeus. Stifle 16:49, 28 January 2006 (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.