243:
philosophies, but aren't certain of the guy behind the work that they enjoy (he's introverted (one of his great topics) and often avoids the media). I personally don't believe that being self-published devalues the notability, quality, or integrity of his work. It's just an article, not the end of the world, so delete it if you must (even though I've seen far worse articles, which perplexes me as to why when I look at the
History of this article there's a lot of back and forth controversy). I do have a complaint about the Knowledge (XXG) community here. There seems to be presuppositions of the integrity and character behind article creations. Anyone who knows anything about his work knows his beliefs regarding fame, money, and personal gain. I can't speak for the rest of the contributors, however the page isn't for promotion nor was it meant to be worded in such a manner. My complaint isn't so much the deletion of any internet article (it's an asinine situation), but rather the hostile vibes towards imperfect contributors. Because Knowledge (XXG) isn't "policed" by a neutral, trustworthy staff, but rather everyday contributors, it seems rather easy to overlook/exaggerate certain guidelines out of spite, "clique", etc.
636:
I appreciate the new rule: A person should keep their mouth shut after a new page is up. The attack bots will accuse you of site vandalism. As far as I can tell, none of the contributions made were harmful or offensive to anyone or anything. You speak as though the contributors to this article were
294:
On second thought, the creator actually writes a lot like Jami. I can tell because I want to repeat him, "Because
Knowledge (XXG) isn't 'policed' by a neutral, trustworthy staff, but rather everyday contributors, it seems rather easy to overlook/exaggerate certain guidelines out of spite, 'clique',
242:
Hello, I am closely affiliated with the subject of the article, and I originally created the page. He is indeed a self-published author who, despite being self-published, has developed a devoted fan base who I felt deserved a "go-to source" as to who this guy is: people have enjoyed his books and
680:- No coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Being self-published is not a criteria for deletion, but it is a red flag for doing further investigation for notability as it is rare that a self-published author gets significant overage in independent reliable sources. --
612:
Your comment is unclear, since the editing record shows that your first edit was about 20 minutes after the topic was created - implying that some form of announcement or other direct communication provided you with "after I heard that Criss Jami now had one". Absent that, another plausible
596:
I think
Tedickey just proved my point. People must not be allowed to make an account to support a certain cause, otherwise they're considered a "meatpuppet". At least I can admit why and when I came to the site, I don't deny it. I just think this is silly to be so obsessive.
652:
On the contrary. The contributors to the topic have been offensive, making accusations, using self-published sources and vague assertions of notability. That's in the editing history (including your own edits and comments). The other editors have asked for
637:
troublemakers who invaded your home when really you're the only individual escalating something you personally disagree with. If you think the article should be deleted, great! But you evidently have a bigger issue with harmless users than an article.
456:) after consultation with the first (who was unsuccessful in the review), and that the third helped with the process. An AFD really should be conducted by independent individuals, not those who have colluded beforehand to promote the topic
473:
hmm I have no idea what all that means. I indeed made a
Knowledge (XXG) account after I heard that Criss Jami now had one. The rumors about this place must be true. I'd prefer editors, not stalkers and attack bots.
349:
is quite correct in stating that self-published authors aren't automatically precluded from having articles, but they (like every other subject) must satisfy the notability requirements, and Criss Jam doesn't.
158:
201:
and pages created by or affiliated with the subject. His books are self-published through Amazon's CreateSpace facility, which should immediately ring alarm bells. There also appears to be a
119:
551:
574:
152:
494:
That link was hilarious, thanks for the laugh! "I edit-warred, made disruptive edits and sockpuppeteered, and those bastard admin nazis blocked me for it!"
531:
478:
And I almost want to change my vote because I hardly encourage anyone being a part of a site who so closely monitors users with such opposition.
322:
614:
282:
263:
415:
326:
286:
411:
378:
17:
92:
87:
503:
214:
96:
173:
708:
475:
140:
40:
355:
79:
318:
305:
453:
434:
Chriss Jami) who have advocated keeping the topic. The editing history shows that they are closely connected. A
278:
259:
134:
658:
314:
301:
251:
642:
618:
602:
520:
483:
407:
394:
374:
351:
435:
389:. Make a tag about it needing stronger sources, but it doesn't seem desperate for deletion. Give it time.
704:
36:
638:
598:
516:
479:
403:
390:
130:
689:
670:
646:
630:
606:
589:
566:
542:
524:
507:
487:
465:
447:
398:
381:
359:
309:
267:
236:
218:
205:
issue with the page's creator, looks a lot like an attempt to use
Knowledge (XXG) for self-promotion.
61:
83:
57:
346:
274:
255:
166:
342:
194:
180:
666:
626:
538:
461:
443:
232:
345:. I can't find the significant coverage in reliable sources required to demonstrate notability.
198:
75:
67:
613:
interpretation of your remark might be that you were watching Criss Jami's lack of progress in
585:
562:
499:
370:
210:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
703:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
427:
338:
202:
190:
53:
654:
146:
685:
438:
is probably a good thing, to see how many individuals are conducting the discussion).
662:
622:
534:
457:
439:
228:
476:
http://theoks.net/blog/2009/08/27/reblog-why-i-really-hate-wikipedia-administrators/
581:
558:
495:
206:
113:
681:
452:
Going back to the history, it appears that one created this topic (see
697:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
197:. A search for sources brings up nothing more substantial than
515:
Why of course it's funny. There's humor in truth, my friend.
247:
This is a neutral vote from the creator of the article.*
109:
105:
101:
165:
179:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
711:). No further edits should be made to this page.
430:who (in addition to the first who appears to
8:
573:Note: This debate has been included in the
552:list of Authors-related deletion discussions
550:Note: This debate has been included in the
575:list of Poetry-related deletion discussions
572:
549:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
661:, and none have been presented
343:specific guideline for authors
189:Doesn't appear notable, fails
1:
690:22:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
671:01:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
647:21:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
631:21:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
607:19:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
590:18:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
567:18:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
543:11:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
525:11:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
508:11:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
488:10:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
466:09:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
448:09:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
399:08:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
382:16:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
360:13:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
310:12:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
268:10:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
237:09:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
219:09:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
62:20:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
339:general notability guideline
728:
700:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
227:agree with all points
199:user-generated reviews
416:few or no other edits
327:few or no other edits
287:few or no other edits
418:outside this topic.
329:outside this topic.
289:outside this topic.
203:conflict of interest
532:"Closely connected"
347:User:TheKILLOSOPHER
48:The result was
592:
578:
569:
555:
527:
510:
419:
352:Dylanfromthenorth
337:. Fails both the
330:
290:
271:
254:comment added by
719:
702:
579:
556:
514:
493:
454:WP:Meat puppetry
401:
315:Philosophynow789
312:
302:Philosophynow789
272:
270:
248:
184:
183:
169:
117:
99:
34:
727:
726:
722:
721:
720:
718:
717:
716:
715:
709:deletion review
698:
426:That makes two
249:
126:
90:
74:
71:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
725:
723:
714:
713:
693:
692:
674:
673:
657:, evidence of
634:
633:
617:, followed by
594:
593:
570:
546:
545:
512:
511:
471:
470:
469:
468:
450:
433:
421:
420:
384:
363:
362:
292:
291:
275:TheKILLOSOPHER
256:TheKILLOSOPHER
240:
239:
187:
186:
123:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
724:
712:
710:
706:
701:
695:
694:
691:
687:
683:
679:
676:
675:
672:
668:
664:
660:
659:WP:Notability
656:
651:
650:
649:
648:
644:
640:
632:
628:
624:
620:
616:
611:
610:
609:
608:
604:
600:
591:
587:
583:
576:
571:
568:
564:
560:
553:
548:
547:
544:
540:
536:
533:
530:
529:
528:
526:
522:
518:
509:
506:
505:
501:
497:
492:
491:
490:
489:
485:
481:
477:
467:
463:
459:
455:
451:
449:
445:
441:
437:
431:
429:
425:
424:
423:
422:
417:
413:
409:
405:
400:
396:
392:
388:
385:
383:
380:
376:
372:
368:
365:
364:
361:
357:
353:
348:
344:
340:
336:
333:
332:
331:
328:
324:
320:
316:
311:
307:
303:
300:
296:
288:
284:
280:
276:
269:
265:
261:
257:
253:
246:
245:
244:
238:
234:
230:
226:
223:
222:
221:
220:
217:
216:
212:
208:
204:
200:
196:
192:
182:
178:
175:
172:
168:
164:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
132:
129:
128:Find sources:
124:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
699:
696:
677:
639:Severelightz
635:
599:Severelightz
595:
517:Severelightz
513:
498:
480:Severelightz
472:
436:WP:CheckUser
404:Severelightz
391:Severelightz
386:
371:cocomonkilla
366:
334:
298:
297:
293:
250:— Preceding
241:
224:
209:
188:
176:
170:
162:
155:
149:
143:
137:
127:
49:
47:
31:
28:
414:) has made
325:) has made
285:) has made
153:free images
76:Criss Jami
68:Criss Jami
54:Black Kite
705:talk page
195:WP:AUTHOR
37:talk page
707:or in a
663:TEDickey
623:TEDickey
535:TEDickey
458:TEDickey
440:TEDickey
412:contribs
341:and the
323:contribs
283:contribs
264:contribs
252:unsigned
229:TEDickey
120:View log
39:or in a
582:Frankie
559:Frankie
496:Yunshui
428:WP:SPAs
379:contrib
207:Yunshui
159:WP refs
147:scholar
93:protect
88:history
678:Delete
367:Delete
335:Delete
295:etc."
225:delete
191:WP:GNG
131:Google
97:delete
50:delete
655:WP:RS
174:JSTOR
135:books
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
686:talk
682:Whpq
667:talk
643:talk
627:talk
619:this
615:this
603:talk
586:talk
563:talk
539:talk
521:talk
484:talk
462:talk
444:talk
408:talk
395:talk
387:Keep
375:talk
356:talk
319:talk
306:talk
299:Keep
279:talk
260:talk
233:talk
193:and
167:FENS
141:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
621:.
181:TWL
118:– (
688:)
669:)
645:)
629:)
605:)
588:)
580:—
577:.
565:)
557:—
554:.
541:)
523:)
486:)
464:)
446:)
432:be
410:•
402:—
397:)
377:|
373:|
369:—
358:)
321:•
313:—
308:)
281:•
273:—
266:)
262:•
235:)
161:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
52:.
684:(
665:(
641:(
625:(
601:(
584:(
561:(
537:(
519:(
504:水
502:
500:雲
482:(
460:(
442:(
406:(
393:(
354:(
317:(
304:(
277:(
258:(
231:(
215:水
213:
211:雲
185:)
177:·
171:·
163:·
156:·
150:·
144:·
138:·
133:(
125:(
122:)
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.