Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Andrew Reis

Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia (such as swearing, deleting letters to make innappropriate words, etc.)

does this page come under this definition supplied by wikipedia itself. recieved a message that i am 'vandalizing' the article, and also questioned the integrity of the article. the article is purely factual, any inappropriate changes have been 'un-changed' and the only relevant chanegs made were to erroneoues and untrue edits made by other users.

so please clarify as to why this article is being deemed as vandalism when it does not come under any conditions which should place it for deletion.

i have gone through the wikipedia policy on posting articles, at length, and have foudn no such condition that would support the decision for deletion. i have also looked under the guidelines to vanity where is says that one does not have to be famous to post a relevant autobiographical article. however, it also say that they should be outstanding in some fields unique to them, and i feel that the article holds merit, as the content is factual and are outstanding achievements.

i feel that the users who have deemed this articly as vandalism, do not use sufficient caution when browsing the neqw articles and deleting those at a first glance. the integrity of the site as a free online encylopedia comes under scrutiny because fo these users.

thoughts/comments?

My Thoughts
"Haven't we made it clear enough that you don't write articles about yourself yet? Average Earthman 19:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)"

Before you make your decision and try and impose your will on others please read the guideline for deletion. This will save new articles beign victim to your mindless and uninformed decisions on deletion. It clearly states that users are encouraged to produce relevant articles of oustanding achievements.

To say, "don't write articles about yourself", is absurd.

Further official Wikipedia policy you should know.
The following are directly from the official policy of Wikipedia, perhaps you should read them over first before mindlessly supporting the deletion of this article.

"Articles on very little-known subjects are often of debatable value for our readers, so if you write a new article on one it is particularly important to express the facts in a neutral way and as much as possible to cite sources that are credible, neutral, and independent."

^^I have tried ot do this, if it is still not up to your 'standards' please advise.

"An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia (although consensus exists regarding particular kinds of article, for instance see WP:MUSIC). Lack of fame is not the same as vanity."

The achievements stated in the content are noteworthy, but alas, it does say that there is "currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia"

Please, for the sake of all the articles that have been deleted by such ruthless users, read the official policy of Wikipedia.