Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Caste


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 01:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Nicholas Caste

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

On the face of it, fails WP:PROF and his listed publications are mostly journal articles. Google Scholar has only 16 entries which fail to show the required level of academic influence. There is nothing here to take this person out of the average and into the exceptional that we require for inclusion here. Rodhull andemu  19:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

But when you dig deeper, you will find that Nicholas Caste is a wonderfully sexy man-beast, who is much more important than all of us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.96.54.180 (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF, lack of sources to affirm notability, despite the above glowing commentary. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Opposite of Delete - Dr. Caste is an obvious crusader against Nazis and the like, and once beheaded a Nazi on his front stoop as a warning to others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.96.54.180 (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC) And what Else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.96.54.180 (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:PROF. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That is sufficent reason for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You just didn't add anything, you repeated. So why say anything at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.96.54.180 (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I just corrected the article according to his official CV linked to there as a reference . He's a lecturer ,not a professor. And as is obvious anyway from the titles, that's a list of publications, not books. I was rather puzzled at such a minimal publication record for a full professor at a good university. Clearly not yet notable. The article has been subject to a good deal of foolish vandalism, but the erroneous information was there from the start, in the edit by User:Riverswillflow. I wonder a little at the anon here, who made such edits as  (if it's the same individual using that account).  Considering the circumstances, I'd suggest a quick deletion, possibly by SNOW.    DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * On that, it's not WP:CSD#A7-able, because it asserts WP:notability and taking into account the recent history I was pretty sure a WP:PROD would be contested. Hence this AfD. Rodhull  andemu  00:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I said SNOW, not Speedy. I know the difference, and I understand CSD A7. (the material added since my comment reinforces my view that this should be quickly removed)   DGG ( talk ) 06:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, he definitely is a professor and if you say otherwise you obviously do not know what you are talking about. He is an avid Nazi hater and to remove that from his wikipedia is simply unamerican. Are you a Nazi sympathizer? Seriously though, he is one of the best Professors we have had and he knows about all the crazy stuff we put on here, you should just let us have fun with it. Wikipedia isn't taken seriously anyways so why does it matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lopo06 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you haven't read our standards for inclusion for academics; your argumentum ad correctum politicem is misguided. If you really think that Wikipedia is intended for "fun", then I really doubt your ability to even matriculate into higher education, although you claim to have done so. You might possibly graduate, but only just, and you should be able to torment youself in later years, when you realise that if you'd taken your studies a tad more seriously, you might have ended up with a better life. But that is your decision, and yours alone. Youthful indiscretions may be forgiveable, but if you carry them forward into areas where they are inappropriate, you might find that the result is not that which you intended. Time to get wise, perhaps. Rodhull  andemu  01:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, those who successfully matriculate into higher education know that Wikipedia is not to be taken seriously and that it is useless. You know, with all those big words, you think you'd be able to actually spell yourself and forgivable correctly. We take our studies seriously, what we don't take seriously is people like you. Also, you don't "get wise" as it is not a tangible thing, rather, you become wise.
 * Unwise to play the academic games with me; "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of tiny minds" - Ralph Waldo Emerson. Better to quit while you're behind, or in other words, "stop digging when you're in a hole". Rodhull  andemu  01:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it must be very wise, we aren't taking you very seriously, but it seems I've struck a nerve. I've accomplished my purpose. Too bad you don't know what yours is. Basically that's all I want. To play a game! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.96.54.180 (talk) 01:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC) — 174.96.54.180 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * My purpose is writing an encyclopedia. But you admit to being a disruptive WP:Troll. Why should you not be blocked from editing here? Rodhull  andemu  01:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Because, Rod, I want to play a game. Though, I prefer Sociopath. It has a much better ring to it, wouldn't you say Rod? You know, there's two types of people on wikipedia. There's you, the one who takes Wikipedia seriously, who thinks he is "writing an encyclopedia" when all he's doing is frittering his time away on something that wont mean anything in the end. Then there's us, the Legion. We may well be frittering our time away, but not really. We're the reason Wikipedia cant be used in true academic pursuits. Then again, we're your purpose. Without us, you'd have nothing to do but sit there, attempting to look academic. You don't appreciate your life Rod, because you think what you're doing is important, when it isn't. I want to play a game. The rules are simple. You leave Wikipedia and don't come back. You will See as I See. You write travel the world, write some books, save a fair maiden and make her your own, or perhaps just explore the unknown and enjoy your life. You leave this behind forever. When you've done that, I want to to evaluate what really made you whole. What made you alive. What helped you appreciate your life. I promise it wont be this. Because right now, you are dead. Dead inside with no one but us, the Sociopaths. If you fail my test, you will always be dead, and you will always wonder what could have been.

Life or Death Rod, make your choice. Let the game begin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.96.54.180 (talk) 02:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete despite all the filibustering above. There's no evidence of academic impact such as highly cited publications, that would pass WP:PROF #1 nor any of the other WP:PROF criteria, and no evidence of non-academic notability e.g. through news articles mentioning him. "Working on" a presidential campaign does not convey notability either. Oh, and Rodhullandemu: please don't feed the trolls. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable, troll promoted article? Yeah get out. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Could we block these IPs for nonconstructive posting? --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 13:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails everything, and I think SNOW would be appropriate as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:Prof #1 on GS cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC).
 * Delete. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * delete fails WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:PROF. Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:PROF, time to SNOW delete? Salih  ( talk ) 08:58, 11 October 2009 (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.