Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Tim Cotterill

I will also mention that consensus by those making their arguments based off policy was also in favor of deletion.

Not likely to ever happen based upon the kinds of ridiculous and deceptive arguments being put forth to try to rationalize up notability. Somehow appearing on a brief segment on a local TV station's community talk show (couldn't get more perfect example of trivial coverage) is getting presented as if NBC Nightly News did a primetime live report on him or something. SEriously, they just say "NBC" covered him and he must obviously be notable. I don't get why these people are so hellbent on justifying themselves that they try to mislead people. I know we had at least one sock puppet voter, but some of these other people are longtime editors, and their actions are not only inexcusable but completely inexplicable for anyone who has been around for a while. I just don't get it. DreamGuy (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have to consider the variety of people's motivations for making edits. People are emotion-driven—and some people like to adopt strays and orphans. My perception is that this desire to defend the defenseless and speak for the unrepresented overwhelms some editor's desire to actually improve the project—it seems incontrovertible that on an issue by issue basis, defending or improving these articles to make a

point

is not the best use of time to improve the encyclopedia.

The counterargument is that while in aggregate, letting "rampant deletionism" spread is a bad thing for the project, and their (individually relatively less beneficial than other ways they could use their time) edits amount to something bigger. Even if you buy the logic (which I don't), I don't think it actually accounts for the impassioned and wounded-sounding pleas that one often sees at these AfD discussions. Bongomatic 01:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamguy, I asked Michael Schmidt to look at the AfD for this article. He's pretty good at rescuing articles from consignment to the void. I'm a fairly hard core deletionista and before Michael had a crack at it I supported the deletion proposal. After his efforts I was satisfied that it should stay. I think you're being a touch less than generous in your assessment of the efforts made by people like him in this regard. X MarX the Spot (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some articles shouldn't be rescued. Obvious self-promotion by deceptive marketers certainly count among them. I hate seeing thr project abused in such a way, and anyone who helps that along is just abusing the site as well. They may feel like they are doing the right thing, but they are rewarding spamming. DreamGuy (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Dreamguy, since you are a strict interpretor of guideline, I myself might ask a little more strongly that you exercize a more guideline-like interpretation of

WP:Verify non-controverisal facts... again exactly as prescribed by guideline. So maybe you can let we editors who wish to add encyclopedic content to wikipedia get on with our tasks? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, you keep claiming it was well supported, but it clearly didn't even come close to meeting our notability guidelines, and the work you and others have done since then doesn't either. Not. Even. Close. If you want to add encyclopedic content, then go do so, but stop trying to add marketing material and pretend that it's not. DreamGuy (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(out) I haven't spent much time around AFD recently, and I was surprised and disappointed in the behavior I found here on both "sides". I'm here because the article was on my watchlist from something piddling I did long ago and I started watching the deletion debate. What I saw is a minor article dropped right smack in the middle of a ongoing battle between two factions that are more concerned with propping up or destroying a whole alphabet soup of guidelines then actually considering the article itself. There are some good sources, but anybody being honest with themselves will admit this article doesn't have much of a future beyond a stub. That said, its not hurting the project. It can be self-promotional and biased all it wants; the truth is that all that will come of this article is the artist telling his friends that he has an article on Wikipedia. Once the furor dies down, this page would likely have be forgotten except by a few watchlists. I'm not saying that a editor shouldn't nominate articles for deletion, and I'm not saying that other editors shouldn't try to fix the article so that it is up to snuff. These are both honorable activities that really do take the best interests of the encyclopedia to heart. What I am saying is that you should make your point and let it be. If the closing admin agrees with you, then great. If not, then who cares? Move on to something else. This AFD saw disputes spill over from other articles, debates about the nuances of every word of a sub-note to a guideline, and most alarming of all, the extension of these battles through edit warring in the article itself. Thousands of words are typed in a futile attempt to try to best somebody of the opposite opinion. I'm reminded of people that call radio shows with opposite political viewpoints. You're not going to win a debate, and you are likely to end up looking foolish. Here, it is worse. Not only is your foolishness forever immortalized, but innocent editors sometimes get caught in the crosshairs. I am truely surprised that an article for a minor artist who makes frogs can generate such genuine anger. So that said, I'll pull my head back and go back to work on my decidedly less controversial articles. CosmicPenguin (talk• WP:WYO^Help!) 04:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:) I may just send a

WP:FREEBEER your way. freshacconci talktalk 04:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Penguin, thank you for taking a moment out of your hallowed day to share your trenchant insights with the rest of us. How blessed we are that you stopped by after the work was done to enlighten us, rather than offer us the benefit of your sagacity during the AfD discussion. I, for one, am slightly better for your intervention here today. Enjoy your beer. ;) X MarX the Spot (talk) 07:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think CosmicPenguin has shown more sense here than most us those who were involved in the AfD debate.

Yes, we should all don sackcloth and rub ashes through our hair. Except for Schmidt MQ. I'm not sure he has hair. :) X MarX the Spot (talk) 11:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I would agree he has some points, it's also very important that spammers know that their efforts will not be rewarded. This particular case is quite blatant. It is also important that we not let people get away with distorting policy to try to justify what they want to do in the first place, as they (and others who see that it worked) will just continue to do so, and then we might as well not have the policies at all. While it might be nice to say that cooler heads should prevail, and "can't we all just get along?" and kumbaya and all that, some people here were taking actions that simply cannot be condoned. If they continue to take those same actions on other articles then Wikipedia will just continue to get less and less like an encyclopedia. DreamGuy (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Dreamguy, perhaps you wished to make an example of a new editor who has not edited wiki since April of 2008, but your utter outrage that someone might write an article about themselves does not seem the least bit mitigated by that fact that once it hits mainspace it became property of Wikipedia... for all of us to then address problems with POV and COI and SPAM. Nine months after its creation, you prodded it. Unfortunately, of the sources that were added (NOT BY THE AUTHOR) after the prods were removed, one went back to the author's site and a second to a blog. So rather than discuss on the talk page how the issues might best be addressed, you tagged it for deletion. Now certainly the original author had a COI... but he had not edited the article (or wiki even) for eleven months... so he was kinda out of the picture. Your outrage over perceived "spamming" eleven months earlier was now vented on every single editor who tried to improve the article to specifically meet your concerns or who had the temerity to argue for a keep and opine that the article might have merit. Attempting to improve an article is ALWAYS to be condoned, appreciated, and encouraged. Being blatantly hostile incivil to those attempting to improve wiki violates the most basic of wiki's core policies... those same policies you above claim to be defending. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]