Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Berlon


 * 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 keep. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Mike Berlon
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

DELETE: I was going to try to breathe some life into this page but after reflection believer it should be deleted. The subject is a minor political player who never held elective officer. The page is stagnant ands there is little chance that it would every seriously be updated. I do not believe it fits the criteria for notability under the Wikipedia policy. At best it should be merged with another site. I was told by another editor that this is the second time that this site has been nominated. The last time was in May. Thoughts?

Boardwalknw8 (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)boardwalknw8 Boardwalknw8 (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)boardwalknw8
 * Comment this is a "political" nomination (not in the party sense). The nominator has failed to edit war the article to their preferred version and is now aiming to delete it since they have failed to get their way. This nom would seem, therefore, a candidate for being speedily kept under criterion #2, per nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course. (And possibly under #1 also: The nominator...fails to advance any argument for deletion or redirection—perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging) User:Boardwalknw8 is also an WP:SPA for this topic  and should declare their conflict of interest, if they have one.  ——  SN  54129  20:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —C.Fred (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. —C.Fred (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Boardwalknw8

COMMENT: I am new user to Wikipedia and want to correct some of the commentary here. I have no conflict of interest in this matter. There was no "edit war". There is no attempt at disruption. My actions have been taken in good faith. Please take the time to review all of the comments that have been hidden from view by user SN54129. I believe they are relevant to the discussion. You decide.

Boardwalknw8 (talk) 13:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)boardwalknw8


 * Keep While the subject has never held elected office, seems to have generated enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I am new user to Wikipedia and want to correct some of the commentary here. I have no personal interest in this matter. I have been told this was the second time this site has appeared for deletion. I did spent hours trying to edit the site because it looked like it would be easy to do. I worked hard at it for hours. Then summarily had all my edits all removed by a user who threatened to have me blocked when I pushed back. The record on that is clear.


 * It is not lost on me that the person who took down all the edits is apparently from the same area as the subject. It certainly appears that he or she is emotionally invested in keeping the page intact and not allowing edits to be made or blocking them in some way. That's their issue, not mine. There was no edit war. I didn't even know what an edit war was. There was one user that simply took down all of my edits 5 to 6 times without serious explanation because they didn't like them. So to suggest that I want the page removed because of that is ludicrous. Frankly, I'd like to have my edits restored but I know that won't happen.


 * It easy be be mean or difficult at a distance, especially when you are anonymous. Or have a hidden agenda. Its's shame and its one of the reasons that people don't get involved in this types of organizations. I'm retired. I was interested in learning how to edit on line. Not be personally attacked or bullied in the process. A few of you helped me. For that I say thank you.


 * Do what you want with the site. I was told that this was the second time it appeared for deletion by another member. I assume that to be true. From my perspective, it does not meet the Notability requirement for Wikipedia. read the policy and see what you think. Read the article as is and ask yourself its it's Wikipedia worthy. Keep it or don't. But if you do, don't block legitimate edits because you don't like the style of the piece.


 * Sorry to editorialize. Thanks again to those who have helped me. I wish you well. I'm no longer going to be involved in this discussion.


 * Boardwalknw8 (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)boardwalknw8
 * Thank you for withdrawing this nomination, thereby saving the community's time and resources; would you do the honors.  ——  SN  54129  21:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * COMMENT: I am not withdrawing the request that the Page be taken down. I want the community to consider it. I have no further plans to comment on it myself. Let the community itself decide as provided for by the policy. Please do not remove it until it has run it's course. Thank you.


 * Boardwalknw8 (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)boardwalknw8
 * I didn't think you were :)   but it was as well to encourage you to publicly admit that this was a WP:POINTy nomination made for the purposes of disruption. Cheers,  ——  SN  54129  13:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

COMMENT TO SN54129: I don't think this constant sniping is appropriate. I didn't plan to post again but I need to respond to your comments. Once again, I made this request in good faith. Not for the purpose of disruption. This site clearly does not seet the requirements on notability. I tried my best to bring in into compliance but all the edits and sources I made were summarily removed without proper discussion. That anyone can see by reviewing the threads.

It's apparent that a few individuals want this site to stay the way it is. Clearly not for the purpose of biography or they would have at least considered the changes and edits that were made. This is the second time this site has been noted for deletion. The animosity alone that has been demonstrated by others should be a reason to take it down. I refer you to my previous comments above.

By the way, have you posted before under a different name or ID? I think that if you have more than one account you should acknowledge that. Please enjoy your remaining wiki break. Let's examine the facts in an objective fashion, not with one sided or smug advocacy. Let the community itself decide as provided for by the policy. That's the whole purpose of objectivity and peer review. Cheers to you as well and Happy Holidays.

Boardwalknw8 (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)boardwalknw8
 * I have templated you for egregious personal attack. In other news, no, the page has never been nominated for deletion before; that's merely a reflection of your lack of understanding as to Wikipedia's processes. ——  SN  54129  14:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I just reviewed the article's history. There are no deleted edits. There were no previous nominations for deletion (AfD) or proposals for deletion (PROD), nor was the article tagged for speedy deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

COMMENT TO SN54129:Thanks for your note. By the way, You never did answer the question about posting under a different name or ID. I was told by another editor that this site was noted for deletion earlier this year. That's why I made those comments. It's interesting that you perceive my response as an "egregious attack" when I have been accused of bias and raising this issue for the purpose of "disruption" only.

I believe my responses speak for themselves. Attacking me personally as being a new user or not understanding wikipedia policy doesn't address the substance of the issue. You may attack me all you wish and question my experience but there is clearly something going on here behind the scenes by certain editors. I encourage anyone reading this thread to review all of the history of the site and the edits and then make their own decision. Cheers.

Boardwalknw8 (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)boardwalknw8

NOTE TO C.FRED. Thanks for your input. I believe you are mistaken about the reverted/deleted edits. The history of the page clearly shows that on 4 occasions on December 4th, that JEDCUBED reverted 19 edits en masse without any attempt at discussion our apparent review of the citations. ( Remove diffless WP:ABF / WP:ASPERSION ——  SN  54129  ) Once again, I encourage anyone reading this thread to review all of the history of the site and the edits and then make their own decision.

Boardwalknw8 (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)boardwalknw8
 * I have removed your aspersion against C.Fred; on the English Wikipedia, unsupported allegations such as that are considered personal attacks (please see WP:WIAPA: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links). Please do not restore it. Also:Please begin to indent your remarks, and you don't need to keep BOLDCAPing stuff, it will not attract a quicker answer. If you want to ping someone, do it thus:, or, in plain code, Also please read up on the difference between deleted pages and deleted edits—what I believe you are claiming—and plain old reversions—which are what actually happened to your edits on account of their being deemed unhelpful to the article by various editors. In other words, they were not deleted, merely undone; they are still in the page history.Finaly, please stop accusing people of socking and conspiring against you; it is merely a case of learning from others' experience...which you should do, it will honestly make things easier for everyone.  ——  SN  54129  18:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * @Boardwalknw8: I was not focusing on removal of content on the page. I was only looking for attempts to delete the article outright—and there's nothing to indicate in the history that anybody, other than you, has attempted to delete the article. —C.Fred (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

COMMENT TO SN54129: Thank you the information on how to communicate. I will work on that in the future. The learning    curve for me is a bit steep so please bear with me for now. I believe that my question to C.Fred was appropriate. I also don't believe you have the unilateral right to remove it. The same is true of the removal and subsequent shutdown of the undone" edits". Therefore, I ask that you restore my question. ''Let's ask the community if it's inappropriate. I also note that you never answered my question to you about more than one editing account and neutrality.'' I find this interesting since I was asked to do the same.

I am not accusing anyone of conspiring against me. Once again, I made this request in good faith. Not for the purpose of disruption. This site clearly does not seet the requirements on notability. I tried my best to bring in into compliance but all the edits and sources I made were summarily removed without proper discussion. That anyone can see by reviewing the threads. Let's get to a discussion on the merits.

Sorry about not being indented. Still working on that...Cheers.

Boardwalknw8 (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)boardwalknw8

Comment: I feel a need to clarify here. I've seen has characterized my reversion of their edits in a negative light. "It is not lost on me that the person who took down all the edits is apparently from the same area as the subject. It certainly appears that he or she is emotionally invested in keeping the page intact and not allowing edits to be made or blocking them in some way. That's their issue, not mine. There was no edit war. I didn't even know what an edit war was. There was one user that simply took down all of my edits 5 to 6 times without serious explanation because they didn't like them." First off, I am in no way involved with the subject. Secondly, the reversion was because, on reviewing the content that was added, it appeared to be in violation of the Neutral point of view policy. I make an effort to avoid becoming emotionally attached to stuff like this. In addition, the user has also characterized my action of leaving warnings on their talk page as "threatening them". My actions were never meant to threaten. They were to warn a user whose edits appeared to violate NPOV to stop making changes that were non-neutral. I suggest this user take a look at the assuming good faith policy, before interpreting my actions as hostile. Jeb3 Talk at me here What I've Done 19:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Boardwalknw8

COMMENT TO JEBCUBED: I will apologize to you in advance for the formatting. I'm still working on it.

At the outset, thank you for your post. While I appreciate the fact you are an experienced editor, the manner in which you handled this allowed me to draw only one conclusion. All 19 edits I made were summarily reversed without any attempt of any kind to discuss this matter. When I added them back, I was told that you would have me blocked. I was trying to create a page that is not notable into something that might be. I believe that "good faith" would have been an attempt at discussion which never occurred. You simply could have pointed out the areas where you believe there was an issue about non-neutrality. Rather than demand it be done your way.

Having said that, I appreciate your post. If you say you have no interest in the matter and were working in good faith, I accept that. No one likes to engage in these kinds of back and forth discussions. I made the request to delete this site in good faith. Not for the purpose of disruption. This site clearly does not meet the requirements on notability. Let's get to a discussion about that on the merits. Thank you again. I think you showed quite a bit of class in your post.

Boardwalknw8 (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)boardwalknw8


 * Keep Seems to be a rather POINTy nomination Head of the state party, seems to meet GNG. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 23:01, 9 December 2019 (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.