Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 30

Difference between the Alan Cabal artile
Here is the difference between the Alan Cabal article when it was first proposed for deletion in January and the article today: I will build a graph to support the claim that the article has been completly rewritten with new sources.
 * 

I will also argue that many of the sources meet or exceed notability guidelines.Ikip (talk) 12:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And when will you be doing this exactly? Just show us the sources, that would be a good start.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As DGG states on his user page: "I do not attempt to convert my opponents--I aim at converting their audience". No amount of references will convince some editors, who consume so much time deleting other editors contributions. Ikip (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, do you have five good references to try to show and therefore convinve someone? Or is this more smoke and mirrors with dozens of cites, few of which even mention the fellow? A 12-2 afd closed two weeks ago. No sources of merit found in the interim and the article is recreated and its defenders can't provide new sources that stand up to scrutiny? In the long run you'll convince few people that way.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Bali Ultimate analysis of cabal sources in version as of April 2, 2009 10am eastern
Source analysis: Bali ultimate (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. Self published.
 * 2. Published by close personal friend (the jersey shore car trip).
 * 3. Passant mentions (two sentences in an article).
 * 4. Passant mention that a guy named "garbled uplink" was unpleasant at an early BBS.
 * 5. Self published.
 * 6. One sentence mention in a 300 page book (with apparently incorrect information).
 * 7. Mention of his name in a capsule theater review from the late 60s.
 * 8. Mention of his name in a capsule theater review from the late 60s.
 * 9. Not a citation at all (apparently he had a minor appearance on the patty duke show? NOt established by this).
 * 10. Book doesn't mention cabal at all.
 * 11. Passant mention.
 * 12. Passant mention (the words "Garbled Uplink;" that's it).
 * 13. Same exact citation as number 4.
 * 14. Passant mention of "garbled uplink" as a member of a BBS system in a book review of the book used for citations 4 and 13.
 * 15. Doesn't mention cabal at all.
 * 16. Doesn't mention cabal at all.
 * 17. First person narrative about band cabal was in written by band mate.
 * 18. Dead link. But it looks to be selfpublished and under a pseudonym no less.
 * 19. Non citation citation (a note that he was on the masthead of a free weekly as a contributing writer.)
 * 20. No mention of cabal whatsoever in this.
 * 21. A blog that someone claiming to be Cabal wrote about himself in the comments section? No. Not ever usable. For anything.
 * 22. Capsule summary of a Cabal article as part of holocaust denial section of the wyman report for 2004.
 * 23. Mention of same cabal article on a holocaust denial website.
 * 24. Mention of same cabal article in a letter written by the holocaust denier that cabal defended.
 * 25. Self published (the holocaust denial related article tied to the mentions 22, 23, 24).
 * 26. Mention of a mean letter to the editor sent by Alan Cabal to the jewish press at the jewish press.
 * 27. Mean letter sent by Alan Cabal to the New York Press, published in the letters section.
 * 28. Self published (an index pointing to an article that Cabal wrote for the NY Press, can't find the article itslef. Not that that would be relevant).
 * 29. Pesonal web page of a professor at Wayne State university mentioning a line from a cabal article as a favorite quotation, embedded in other favorite quotations, with no discussin or commentary or otherwise mention of cabal. Did i mention this is a personal web page?
 * 30. Self-published.
 * 31. Picture of the back cover of an obscure book Called "Weird New Jersey". On the back cover Cabal has provided a publishers blurb praising it. Friends with the authors? Almost certainly.
 * 32. A cabal quote used in a book published by an apparent vanity press. That's it.
 * 33. Two line mention of Cabal in a 300 page book. Nothing about cabal at all.
 * 34. A book on Buckminster Fuller mentions briefly a Cabal article in which cabal said he liked buckminster fuller. That's it.
 * 35. Apparently another brief quote of his mentioned in an "AMerican SPectator" article.
 * 36. Another cabal quote used in another minor book.
 * 37. Cabal and ex wife mentinioned in acknowledgments of book written by a friend.

Per WP:BIO Basic criteria
Quote "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability.", "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." Thank you for proving notability.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't be obutse: What part of "may be used" do you not understand? "May be used" means something very different from "is sufficient." As it is, almost nothing is established about him. No reliable source has ever seen fit to write an article about him. He has won no awards. He has left no mark on the profession (i'm not even sure what to call his old profession; not journalism, surely. "Childish polemics," maybe). He has only been taken notice of for one article -- his defense of the holocaust deniar -- by the holocaust denier himself and his critics. None of these sources discuss him at all, and number of these sources don't even mention him. I'm getting tired of your faux courtesy.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * ?? There is no need for calling me "obtuse" or my coutesy "Faux". I ask that you might refrain from such kindnesses in the future. We disagree on this matter I myself am determined to remain civil, even though your personal animus toward this article is apparent. In directly quoting guideline, the phrase "May be used" means just that... "may be used". Guideline says what it says.  I do not re-interpret or mis-interpret it to make or break an article. Thank you.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You keep saying you're being civil while being passive aggressive ("thank you for proving notability") and ascribing motives (incorrectly I might add) to me (i.e. "your personal animus towards this article is apparent"). I'm giving as good as i'm getting, just more straightforwardly. Bali ultimate (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * From here on in, why don't both of you just focus on the article rather than on each other. AniMate  talk  21:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you AniMate. Thank you.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * At issue is if this is a reasonable speedy candidate. I don't think it is as there are significant changes that address the original reason for deletion.  We can argue over the quality of the sources used, but given the huge changes, it shouldn't be left to a single admin to make that call.  Let's get if off to AfD where it will likely again be deleted for the reasons Bali ultimate outlines. Hobit (talk) 05:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I do have a question for you Bali. Why are you spending so much time and effort deleting this article? I am not curious about the policy reasons, I am interested in personal reasons. What personal satisfaction do you recieve from this? Is it the mental challenege? Is it like a competive game, where you get satisfaction from "winning" when the article is deleted? I have never quite understood the motivation and psychology behind editors who fight so hard, investing hours of time, to delete other editors contributions. Quoting policy reasons is not a real reason, there is personal motivation under those policies. I just don't understand it, but am sincerely interested why. Ikip (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * ("thank you for proving notability") is NOT in the least bit passive aggresive. It is, more than anything, a statement of fact. Editor:Bali ultimate's effort to discredit the sources has done the opposite (ergo, Editor:Schmidts comment, "Thank You). To assume manners are a form of aggresion is contrary to ASF. You have erected a "scarecrow" (unfounded attacks re:Editor Schmidt) to create a diversion away from the "crops" (The article re: Alan Cabal). Let us concentrate on saving or erasing the article...not each other.--Buster7 (talk) 11:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it was passive agressive. I've made my arguments, find them persuasive or not. But when i've conclusively demonstrated that none of the citations constitute substantial coverage, don't tell me I've proven your point. Why do i think this article should be deleted? Because it's about a non-notable person. It was deleted with 12-2 support two weeks ago at AFD. It was then "recreated" out of process. And now a number of editors who think wikipedia should have the inclusion standards of myspace keep throwing up "citations" to "save" the article that aren't about the subject, sometimes don't mention the subject, etc... Why would an editor fight so hard, to the extent of having an online handle of "I keep" to keep non-notable garbage in the encyclopedia and harm it in the process? I'm sincerely interested as to why someone would spend so much time, invest so many hours, in harming the encyclopedia. I have never quite understood the motivations and psychology behind editors like you (clearly when you quote policy those aren't your real reasons, there are deeper personal motivations driving you). I just don't understand it. But I am sincerely interested as to why. (For Buster -- stop the whining and attacks on me -- and stop inventing your own "jargon;" it's poor writing).Bali ultimate (talk) 13:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Another scarecrow?...--Buster7 (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * More whining?Bali ultimate (talk) 03:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. The paragraph talked about the project reasons why you spend so much time deleting articles, but not your personal reasons.
 * I will try explaining my personal motivations, in the hope you can do the same.
 * The biggest reason I err on the side of keep, is my own religious/political views and beliefs are marginalized and even hated in the US and in the community I grew up in.  When I edit articles about these views and beliefs my articles and contributions have been relentlessly deleted by editors with a strong POV.  I have a real emphathy for editors who go through the same thing.  I see a trend of many of these editors as bullying and unwilling to comprimise. Not all editors who delete are like this, this is simply the reason I try to give every article the benefit of the doubt, because I know what it is like to have over 3,300 well referenced edits deleted, more edits deleted than most editors have.
 * A minor personal reason is I sincerely enjoy helping other people, especially new editors. My greatest joy on wikipedia has been helping new editors save and userfy their articles.  I like people coming to me for help, if makes me feel important and useful.
 * Thanks for your time. Ikip (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My personal reasons since you really are that interested: I have spent far too much time at war. War has taken an already curt personality and made it more so. I have little interest in anything on wikipedia but outcomes as a result. I care not for feelings hurt by arguments that disagree with their opinions. I care nothing for your religious beliefs (whatever they may be) and your past bad personal experiences here . I think compromise is a bad bill of goods when it means a decline in standards. The only experiences i would categorize as negative (for me) on wikipedia have involved POV-pushers, abusive users of sock puppets and associated types of game playing. I believe strongly that categorization without limits leads to a form of madness best categorized by the Library of Babel. I also have strong social/religious/political views. I've never uttered a word about any of them here, and rarely edit in a fashion (hopefully never, but we're all human) that would reveal them. "AGF" is a trite phrase often used in place of critical thinking. These things I strongly believe.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you.Ikip (talk) 12:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)