Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Stephen Dare


 * 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 of the debate was Delete, again. Stifle (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

William Stephen Dare
An article for this person was deleted last month. See Articles for deletion/Stephen Dare. Not a speedy, because it's new content. - EurekaLott 03:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment  I am writing this note to record the fact that my first experience in creating an article has exposed me to ridicule, offensive behavior and a systematic pattern of argumentation from one of the wikipedia editors, "calton" whose comments are on this page.  I was told by several friends and colleagues that wikipedia was untrustworthy and unreliable and a place so contentious that it wasnt worth the bother, since you merely ended up combatting spiteful and immature people more interested in proving their points than in creating a worthwhile body of knowledge.  While I was making minor edits, I only occaisonally found this to be true, but when I posted an original article, I was made the subect of namecalling and defending my entries against systematic deletion with little or no positive input into the process.

I will now spend my time erasing all contributions that I have made to nuance the subjects upon which I have contributed, both as an unregistered user and a registered one.

This exceedingly sharp process of harrassment has not been limited to this page, but has been conducted on multiple forums where my edits were immediately nominated for speedy deletes while I was actually still in the process of posting them.

I have no problem with input, constructive criticism, or an honest difference of opinion, but being called a liar and having hours of my time wasted,---not out of a desire to improve the project but merely to assert dominance over another persons thoughts goes far beyond that pale.

The merits of the individual which I listed in this entry are obvious and many, and the consensus process is obviously free to come to whatever conclusions it likes regarding the entry's eventual inclusion or deletion, but I acted on behalf of perceived unfairness meted out to the very clever and entertaining author at hand. I had asked for the opportunity to edit the post in such a way as to make it a proper entry, replete with over 25 printed references to his preinternet published work, but Calton has been so aggressive and offensive that I doubt this will be very likely.

The bigoted motivations which prompted the original deletion discussion motivated me to take action to correct this basic injustice, but I see now that this organization is sadly the victim of its trolls.

Calton, and the people who share his approach: You win. I won't be posting anything else, and I will remove all of the content which I have provided so that you can be free from opinions which diverge from yours.

To the several people who did offer advice and sympathy, thank you: your comments were decent and very helpful, I wish you well in your endeavors.

Yours in bitterness, Carsten Boswell. Carstenboswell 23:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)carstenboswell.


 * Comment This is an all new article which clearly outlines notable contribution on the part of the subject. Not to mention that there is good reason why Dare should be retained on wikipedia.  (Besides the overwhelming mantra that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia) A previous post was defaced on numerous occasions and then nominated for deletion in what clearly arose from homophobia.  I have taken the time to accurately research and document this individual, being a bit of a buff on witty writers.  The original article was a mess, and very inaccurate. I have cleaned up all of the inaccuracies, and am glad to have this article reviewed by other wikipedians.Carstenboswell 03:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)carstenboswell
 * A guy so widely published that he gets all of 5 Google hits -- which includes the Wikipedia article itself. Delete. --Calton | Talk 04:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep  (obviously thats my opinion!) wow calton, you are systematically offering all of my edits and articles for deletion. If I wrote the article on Tokyo, would you delete that as non notable as well?  Your page is full of complaints about your mean spiritedness, I can't imagine why.  There are actually 14 pages of google references to the subject under 'stephen dare', and another hundred or so articles mispelling his name as 'Steven'.  Lexis Nexus pulls up another 70 articles not included in the google search engines.  Thatcher, you're right about much of his material being pre-internet, I didn't realize that you could cite paper articles.  Do you simply cite according to research paper format?  Thank you for your feedback!Carstenboswell 05:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)carstenboswell.
 * am glad to have this article reviewed by other wikipedians Man, your about-face was quick. As for your bogus charge, I look at New Pages each morning, and I tag obvious schlock: I feel no special responsiblity for the schlockees. As for "all the mean-spiritedness complaints" from my Talk page, I'm seeing griping from an axe-grinding Scientologist (see his RFC and ArbCom case) and a multiply reverted POV pusher (read his User page for a taste of his attitude)...and that's it. And the less said about your clumsy and inapt Tokyo false-comparison, the better; though I will say that when you're in a hole, guy, it's best to stop digging. --Calton | Talk 06:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow. I really dont know what your trying to say, but you sure seem angry.Carstenboswell 06:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)carstenboswell
 * Possibly at your personal attack. RGTraynor 15:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, there are a number of methods under WP:CITE. My favorite for the moment is the WP:FOOTNOTE method, in which you place the note at the spot in the text where you want it, enclosed by tags, and a tag at the bottom of the page creates a auto-numbered footnote list.  What you enclose at the note could be a url, a free-form text note, or a citation template. Research paper format (author, article title, publication title, volume/issue, date, page) is fine.  There are citation templates to do that automatically or you can write it free-hand. Thatcher131 05:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * For my part, I really don't see anything in this article to prove that the fellow is prominent in any of the fields asserted. Delete.  RGTraynor 15:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I remember looking through Lexis/Nexis the last time this came up and finding a few articles from Jacksonville newspapers that mentioned Dare and/or the Boomtown Cafe in the context of urban revitalization and creating an "artsy" downtown (for lack of a better word). I did not find evidence supporting other claims, such as a series of essays on urban redevelopment. In addition the article lacks an encyclopedic tone with comments like "by far his wittiest writing." Was Dare really "the first in the United States to identify computerization of the workforce as the driving factor of urban decline in the 80s and 90s, and to chronicle the various efforts of American cities to counter urban blight"?  I have added fact tags where I thought they were most important.  Many of these claims are pre-internet but newspaper and magazine articles can still be found in libraries (remember them?) and the citations added (title, author, date, volume, page number, etc)  I would support a keep provided the article was trimmed to include those things for which Dare is verifiably notable, which so far only includes the Boomtown Cafe and related urban revitalization in Jacksonville. Thatcher131 04:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Note If the article is kept, Stephen Dare should be unprotected and turned into a redirect. Thatcher131 04:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as per previous vote and complete lack of credible notability in article. Fagstein 04:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as most of the claims are not verified or referenced. E.g. it says This series of essays 'The Dance of the Fireflies' is probably what he is best know for,... but searching Google for the title and his name finds only the Wikipedia article. Gu 11:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I get the same result even if the name is Stephen Dare and even just using Dare  doesn't give any relevent hits Gu 08:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Gu. -- Kjkolb 13:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: there was a concern about him being called just "Stephen Dare", which would affect Google results. However, "stephen dare" -wikipedia -wiki -gnu only gets 111 unique results, only about half of the results on the first page appear to be about him and very few results are about him after that. -- Kjkolb 07:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Elf-friend 14:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep for sure - just because there are not a great number of online references, there are some paper. SECProto 01:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Like the Social Policy reference? I dug up the abstract:
 * Deifell notes how From the Hip assigned 280 writers and photographers aged 25 and under to document how young people are defining and doing service in their communities. By providing a description of a wide range of service activities and perspectives, From the Hip hopes to promote an understanding of the diversity of opinions on service. (SH)
 * I suspect Dare's name is mentioned, at best, as one of the collective 280 young people that are the real subject of the article.
 * Or maybe you mean Social Issues, a journal which seems not have left a trace of its existence anywhere, nor does any article called “The Eternal Cities” seem to be anywhere found.
 * Let's face it, about the only reference that checks out is being quoted in a Jacksonville buiness journal -- as a café owner. This article doesn"t seem to be full of unverified information -- it looks like it was mostly made up. --Calton | Talk 11:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete nn - I have more Google references, and I'm just an ordinary shmoo. Fishhead64 05:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, tagged for cleanup if it survives AfD. No Opinion on AfD.--Isotope23 18:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Uvaduck 18:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm an urban planner and a new urbanist. This guy may be commendable but he's not notable. Jonas Silk 21:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This guy's artistic contributions may have occurred moreso in the offline world. Give the author a bit more time to verify/provide sources.  --MrFizyx 23:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If the author continues to fail to provide sources and to bemoan his treatment here, I'll go along with the call to delete. I'm something of a newbie here, but I think wikipedia could stand to have better coverage of some obscure art and culture scenes.  Nobody really needs Wikipedia to learn about Britney Spears (although we may end up with a better article than will be found elsewhere).  This, however, is not the place to argue criteria so I'll yield to the majority.  --MrFizyx 16:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per applicable last AfD; he hasn't become more notable since. Sandstein 16:53, 8 April 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.