Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roland Piquepaille

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was - Deleted --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 09:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Roland Piquepaille
A slashdot troll, come on now, Delete. --Boothy443 06:22, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * for refrence check page history. --Boothy443 06:37, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Re-writen with non-POV in mind. My apologies for deleting the vfd --Anon
 * Looks like vanity. Delete. Martg76 23:03, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable. Don't see how it can be vanity since the article was obviously written by someone with an animus against Piquepaille. But his blog is simply not that well-known outside of Slashdot. This is not Walter Mossberg we're talking about. Search for exact phrase "Roland Piquepaille" on Google Groups yields only 56 hits. Google Groups can be a more reliable indicator because website operators don't care about USENET and don't engage in techniques to artificially inflate counts. Generally, for average searches, Groups will yield 1/4 to 1/10 the number of hits on the Web. There are an incredible 123,000 Google hits on the web, the most dramatic ratio between Groups and Web I've ever seen. However, "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 326 already displayed." I am not really sure what's going on here but suspect this blog-savvy individual must be wise in the ways of Googlebombing. Anyway... Piquepaille's blog has very little existence outside the Slashdot fantasy universe. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:23, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unfortunately I lack the skill or knowledge to produce a proper encyclopedia article. Roland Piquepaille is an influential person on Slashdot. If he wasn't, he would not have his daily articles approved over all of the other submitted articles on that topic. I've put down the basic information that I could verify as true, and not point of view. If more people are allowed to see the article, I'm positive that the information here will grow. Funny thing about the google search too. Is Roland Piquepaille a real person, or just something created to receive all the advertising royalties. Perhaps someone should take his resume and try to verify it. --Anon 16:07, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * "Influential person on Slashdot" is my point exactly. Nobody has yet suggested, much less produced evidence, that he has any significant influence or notability anywhere else. What Wikipedia is not says "Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of notoriety or achievement. One measure of achievement is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line)." Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not a Slashdot encyclopedia (although this has been disputed). Dpbsmith (talk) 20:09, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * P. S. Google Groups shows 9,620 hits for "Jerry Pournelle", 4030 for "John Dvorak", 2,530 for "Robert X. Cringely", 1,090 for "Esther Dyson," 181 for "Laura Didio," 373 for "Cmdrtaco", 80 for "Cowboyneal", 55 for "Roland Piquepaille."

Don't delete, it's all true.
 * Things can be true, yet not proper topics for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. If you want me to change my vote, convince me that Piquepaille is as influential as, say, John Dvorak or Esther Dyson or Laura Didio or Robert X. Cringely. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:25, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, it's a publicity flier. Wyss 23:10, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, vanity.  &mdash; mark &#9998; 19:05, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 01:48, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, not notable. The world is not going to remember who was the most popular person in your third grade class, and they're not going to remember who is influential on slashdot.  Heck, I read slashdot and I've never heard of the guy, so he can't even be to influential there. --RoySmith 21:51, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

He's known well enough on /. for an article to be written about him.. kind of suprised there isn't already one. If not one for him self, a 'notable slashdot trolls' article wound make sense, reference him and *Beatles Beatles amoung others.213.78.66.70 09:07, 2 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.