Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry Smiljanich

Terry Smiljanich 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. The result of the debate was to keep the article.

Non-notable person. No evidence of notability. Article created by recurring vandal. RickK 21:27, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete andy 21:32, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, and are there any objections to a block on Haydes? &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 21:35, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Rewrite establishes article-worthiness. Keep. &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 19:23, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * No keep it. [vote by Haydes ]
 * Delete for the reasons stated above. [[User:Livajo|&#21147;&#20255;|&#9786;]] 23:49, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: No notability, and Haydes's vote is, um, not so weighty. (No objections from me.  Past behavior sure doesn't argue for him.)  Geogre 00:48, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Goobergunch's work has certainly made him a borderline case. There is one thing I see in the article that is unambiguous notability, and that's the service to the Senate during Iran-Contra.  Other than that, it looks like the biography of a successful lawyer -- one among many.  Will he be researched?  Has he had a significant impact on the world around him such that people need to know more than they would by finding his name in the Iran-Contra article?  I don't know.  I'm glad to see the work.  Is he a major player in the ghost-busting world or just a local ghost buster?  If he's more than just a Tampa skeptic, then he should stay.  If he isn't, then a scaled down merge and redirect to Iran-Contra would do it.  (I.e. is he known for more than one thing?)  Meanwhile, I'd support an RfC on all the people who use hit lists on meta to come and make meaningless votes, and I mean all the people who do that.  Geogre 15:32, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Who is making a meaningless vote? If any votes are meaningless, then this is a meaningless nomination.  Lists on meta are useful for bringing things to people's attention.  This is needed because VFD has grown so enormously large due to rampant deletionism.  In any case thank you for reconsidering your vote, but it's unclear what you're saying.  If the person has "unambiguous notability", shouldn't you cross out your statement that he has "no notability"?  Have you changed your vote to keep?  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 15:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. Utterly non-notable . --Improv 18:03, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Several little things seem to add up with the rewrite. None of them are quite notable enough to make it a clear keep for me, so I'm going to Abstain. --Improv 15:38, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable person. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 21:38, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable person. Possible vanity. Gamaliel 01:45, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * What in the world is your definition of vanity that would include this? You think Haydes is Terry Smiljanich?  Have you done any fact checking at all?  If so, your suggestion is preposterous.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 02:01, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't care enough to argue about this. Gamaliel 02:14, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * That's convenient because you're most surely wrong. Your vote shouldn't be counted since you have no intention of explaining it, though.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 05:02, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I believe "non-notable person" is sufficient explaination in and of itself. Gamaliel 10:02, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It may be sufficient in that some admins may find it acceptable, but it flies in the face of consensus and leads to mob rule. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 13:48, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * How on earth does my vote fly in the face of consensus? And why is my explaination of "non-notable person" insufficient while your "notable person" is apparently more than enough? Gamaliel 09:41, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It flies in the face of consensus to vote and then refuse to explain yourself. Consensus is about coming to agreement, and you can't come to agreement without discussion.  As for my explanation, no one asked, so I assumed it was already known.  This person is a lawyer, a former law clerk, former assistant US Attorney, counsel to the United States Senate during the Iran-Contra hearings.  He's an important person, as far as people go, and Wikipedia is not paper.  There's plenty of room to include an article on him, and such an article serves to provide useful public information.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 12:42, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with discussion, but I do have a problem with hostile confrontation. Gamaliel 22:24, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not being hostile. I'm just trying to defend Wikipedia from you and others who are trying to destroy it. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 01:24, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Isn't this a bit inflammatory? Destroy it? --Improv 19:22, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't see how. Deletion is by definition destruction.  If the deletionists instead wanted to work toward a solution which wouldn't destroy this useful information I wouldn't need to be here.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 12:47, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: no evidence of notability, not an article. Support blocking User:Haydes. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:40, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Revised vote below. Wile E. Heresiarch 10:55, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC))
 * Neither creation of stubs nor a vote on VFD is a valid reason to block a user. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 20:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * You're starting to froth at the mouth, anthony. Take it down a notch.  Have you even bothered to look at Haydes's history?  Including his deletion of the VfD header from the page in question?  RickK 21:17, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * I've seen the edits. I don't see anything worthy of a ban.  A note on the users talk page not to remove vfd headers maybe, but not everyone knows what vfd is.  Assume good faith.  And don't attack me.  I'm not frothing at the mouth.  In fact, I'd appreciate it if you didn't address me again until you're willing to enter mediation regarding the personal problems you have with me. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 22:04, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I refuse to participate in the broken mediation process, so get used to my talking to you.  RickK 05:54, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * If you don't stop attacking me, be prepared to get used to the broken arbitration process. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 13:23, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that I will participate just because you create a page? RickK 00:21, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * You don't have a choice. If you refuse arbitration, you can't edit Wikipedia.  I know you consider arbitration broken too (is there anything other than VFD which isn't broken?), but you don't have a choice but to participate.  Of course, there's still time.  You can stop attacking me now and I won't have to take this to arbitration in the first place. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 12:56, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * You're fooling yourself if you think someone can be MADE to participate in the arbitration process. How about if I call your bluff?  RickK 23:19, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * You're right. You don't have to participate in arbitration.  "Unwillingness to submit to arbitration, of course, means an end to the privilege of editing." (Jimbo Wales).  Want to call my bluff?  Keep attacking me like this.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 00:37, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * RickK, I don't see why you're saying Anthony's frothing at the mouth from his simple statement on when it's appropriate to block a user. It would be helpful if everyone here would work more on staying civil. --Improv 19:22, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * My coments had to do with his idiotic comments about people wanting to delete garbage like this as trying to destroy Wikipedia. RickK 00:22, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Two specific comments on this:
 * Your comment on frothing at the mouth came before his mentioning destroying Wikipedia
 * Your comment also was not attached to that comment.
 * Civility takes two. --Improv 23:37, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I expanded it a bit. --Goobergunch 00:13, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'll take Goobergunch's weak keep and raise him a keep. [[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 01:01, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Seems like a keep &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  22:49, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Neutral. The most remarkable thing about Mr. Smiljanich seems to be "counsel to US Senate during Iran-Contra hearings". That doesn't necessarily mean that he had a role of any importance; he might have been just one of many staff lawyers. Or maybe he was the only counsel or had some other role of importance; the article doesn't say. Hence the neutral vote. Wile E. Heresiarch 10:55, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable. Dr Zen 00:47, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.