Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RaD Man

RaD Man was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.

13 votes delete, 9 to keep, 1 to merge/redirect. 1 vote, by User:Guybrushnd, was disregarded as likely sock puppet, due to limited and questionable edit history&mdash;I have concluded that all other alleged sock puppets are ostensibly valid votes.

This tally amounts to 14 votes to 9 against having RaD Man as an independent article, nearly a 2/3 consensus, but only 13 to 10 for deleting the content entirely. I believe this logically calls for merging and redirection, but only one vote suggested where. Another solution may be to continue the listing, so that the decision of where to merge may be discussed, and additional votes may be added. As I was one of the voters in such a close VfD, I will decline to personally enact a resolution. Postdlf 01:46, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I confirm Postdlf's tally of votes. In addition, I must admit that User:Eto's contribution history is suspicious having come into existence the same day as this discussion was initiated.  (The time-stamps are ambiguous, perhaps as a result of timezones.)  In addition, his edits (at least as a logged in user) stopped two days later with a high proportion of edits to VfD discussions.


 * However, even if User:Eto's vote is discounted, the final tally fails to reach the necessary consensus for deletion. By default, the article is kept.


 * Comment1: Based on the comments below, the notability of the subject of this article may change over time.  At that point, the decision about the appropriateness of this article may be reevaluated.


 * Comment 2: It does not require a VfD vote or even consensus to turn this article in to a merge and redirect if future editors determine that to be the most appropriate final resolution for this article.  Rossami (talk) 23:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

RaD Man
Vanity. See also Remorse 1981 and User:Radman1. RickK 05:00, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. Are you kidding me?  Rad_Man is one of the most historical figures in the 'underground' art scene, and led one of the most influential groups of the time.  It's like not having Bill_Gates in wikipedia.  Seriously.  -- Eto 23:58, 17 Oct 2004 (PST)
 * Possible sock puppet vote, 6th edit.--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @ )---^-- ]] 07:01, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Eto is quite possibly not a sockpuppet, he has been here for a full month, and has just made very few edits.  &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  04:38, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * I wish people would hang around longer and have more contributions before they start participating in VfD. It'd help make sure people have a good grasp of what Wikipedia is before they start participating in policy actions. --Improv 13:46, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * If he's underground, let's bury him. Delete --Improv 20:55, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete unless evidence of notability is given. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 07:10, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * I saw the guy give a seminar about textmode scene at Assembly 2004... This might be a good idea to verify it. // Gargaj 21:57, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)
 * yep thats him alright. Alkivar 22:23, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. All this ANSII crap is vanity.  Postdlf 08:00, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity. --*drew 08:03, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity autobiography. jni 12:21, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity IMO. Andrewa 12:23, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Let's say he's the #1 figure in an underground movement. Ok.  It's an underground movement.  I.e. it is a movement where people don't use their real names, where the people don't document their work.  Therefore, it is an entirely unverifiable "scene" and a scene that does not have wide acceptance.  And you're outraged that the group isn't represented in an encyclopedia?  Huh?  Geogre 13:05, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I would only be more outraged by ignorant trolls such as yourself. By entirely unverifiable scene, what do you mean exactly?  A quick search at Amazon seems to not only verify but document the work you claim doesn't exist.  Refer to ISBNs 952917022X, 1859734243 and 0974653705 as well as the demo DVD, ASIN B00007M4IB.  I suppose it is always easier to just follow the herd.  School ya later! GRider 21:49, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity, hehe. Unless notability can be proven. Nadavspi 18:45, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It might be vanity, but he has interviews over the last 8 years. Plus a few Google searches shows plenty of information on him.  He's seems to be a signifigant enough figure in an art world to be worth keeping. -Lifefeed 19:17, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * I've been interviewed over the last 30 years or so, and I could come up under Google, but I don't deserve an article. Neither does he.  RickK 19:40, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * He seems to be a notable person in an underground art movement. That's deserving to me. - Lifefeed 15:25, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Let someone contribute an article about you, RickK, and we'll be the judge. GRider 21:53, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Strong keep and be careful with those scissors. What I'd suggest is a major once-over to make sure its NPOV (in case its written by RaD Man himself). Several cases of minor notability are presented, and yes, notability does add, as it affects more and different people.  &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  21:52, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: promo, nonnotable. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:50, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The hatred towards demosceners is disgusting. This 'encyclopedia' is becoming a useless example of press-gang censorship. Delete, instead, the mob that wanders around in force, burning out everything related to an effort to chronicle a misunderstood art form. --Guybrushnd 06:52, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Cool, sockpuppet. --Lucky13pjn 14:49, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm new. I'm not RadMan though. You could check my page, which has my real name, and then bother to spend 10 seconds googling me. Or come down to my workplace. --Guybrushnd 15:46, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't even know what a demoscener is, so there's no way I could hate them. What I DO hate is trolls who waste our time with all of this nonsense.  RickK 21:19, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Rationale at Votes for deletion/Remorse 1981.   &mdash;Triskaideka 17:09, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep Reasonably notable at the moment. In 5 years he may well be completely forgotten - so let's delete him then.--Tomheaton 20:21, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Wikipedia is not a news site. Anything that isn't going to be encyclopedic five years from now isn't encyclopedic now. Subjects must have established a lasting effect on culture or history before they merit encyclopedia articles.   &mdash;Triskaideka 20:32, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Reply to Comment: What do you mean by encyclopaedic? If you mean capable of being described in an encylopaedic fashion - which is what I take it to mean - then he will be as encyclopaedic in 5 years time or in 1000 years time as he is now.  If you mean notable enough to be in an encyclopaedia then I've got to disagree with you.  We really don't know who will be notable in 5 years time.  Wikipedia has plenty of people who may be less notable in 5 years time than they are now.  But that's fine because Wikipedia is a database - nice and easy to edit - let's take a risk and include him now and if in 5 years time his notability has waned then he can be deleted in a trice.--Tomheaton 20:46, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I mean notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. You're right that it's difficult to tell what subjects from the present will be notable in the future, but that doesn't excuse us from the responsibility to write articles only on things that will be.  Better to wait a few years until we're sure that a subject deserves an article than to rush into writing an article on a subject that turns out to be nonnotable.  We're building an encyclopedia here, not maintaining a list of the latest fads. Just because an internet-based encyclopedia can have nonce information inserted and removed rapidly doesn't mean that it should, nor indeed that it will, in practice.   &mdash;Triskaideka 21:03, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep -- While there is no argument that any page about a given person is vain to a degree, this person is certainly noteworthy.  Google seems to agree with this fact.  GRider 21:43, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep RaD Man was one of the most influential artists of the text art scene. Not only is ACiD Productions the oldest ASCII/ANSI group still around, it is the best known. RaD Man FOUNDED this group. Reason enough in my mind anyway for him to remain. Alkivar 01:12, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sockpuppets annoy me. Ambi 00:20, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Del. Non-notable. --Jerzy(t) 13:54, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)
 * Keep, M with ACiD Productions. Useful information in this article. +sj +  16:03, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * This article has more fluff than content and this discussion has more heat than light. Most of the verifiable, encyclopedic content relates to ACiD Productions. Merge it there and redirect. --Michael Snow 17:30, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, albeit with reluctance arising from my distaste for being on the same side as some of the completely inappropriate comments offered above. I don't agree with the idea of waiting a few years to see if this subject area becomes notable.  I'm fine with documenting ephemera for historical purposes.  It would be nice to have ready online access to, say, fads of the 1920s.  My first inclination was to agree with Michael Snow about merge & redirect, but it seems that RaD Man (whom I'd never heard of until I saw this listing) has some activities outside ACiD that are worth noting.  This article certainly needs cleanup, though. JamesMLane 04:03, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. anthony (see warning) 14:18, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable.  --L33tminion | (talk) 21:19, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)