Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RaD Man (2nd nomination)
RaD Man was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep the article.
Self-promotion. Delete. Oven Fresh 02:04, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Abuse This last nomination was a whopping 4 weeks ago. Wait a while before re-nominating, otherwise it looks like you're implying that the result of the last one was entirely invalid, along with the votes within it. Chris 02:16, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Abuse or not, this should go. Delete. Wyllium 05:04, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)
- Keep, seems rather notable in his particular field of art. — David Remahl 06:09, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep He is a Rad Man in my eyes. I've heard of him and met him if it means anything. The article is well written. He's a legend in his field. McKay 08:45, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, and abuse of VfD as well, settle down kids. —siroχo 09:15, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. It has already survived a VfD. Let it be. - Lifefeed 13:53, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
- To say it "survived" VfD is slight simplification. Majority of votes were delete, but no clear consensus was reached, which is not that same as a consensus to keep. Think of it more as a mistrial. This is quite clearly at least partially a vanity page. I also find it slightly unsettling that this is being used as a user page. I'm going to go with delete, but at the very least it has to undergo some cleanup. If this guy clears the notability bar he does it by a hair, and this article should reflect that a bit better, and not make him out to be the digital-age Picasso. Far too many external links; their main pupose seems to be to say "Look! This guy is notable. He's been interviewed alot". -R. fiend 19:23, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, he barely survived the VfD prior, so what if its used as a use page. if KenJen were here, he might use wikipedia's page about him as his user page, but both RaD Man and KenJen, live in the technological world. RaD Man is notable, 'and' here at wikipedia, who cares if they overlap? Also, have you seen his work? He could be considered the ANSI picasso. At the very least He is the digital-age president of the Louvre. McKay 23:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. This just completed VfD less than 72 hours ago and certainly does qualify as abuse. Give the article a chance to experience some organic growth. GRider 19:27, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- By my calculations, October 18, when this was first nominated for deletion, was substantially more than 72 hours ago. As stated on the talk page results were "ambiguous", and I don't think it's a crime to relist a month later in hopes of a less ambiguous result (though whether one can expect such a result is another question entirely). -R. fiend 20:27, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- By My Calculations, the FvD tag was removed from the article on the evening of 12 Nov 2004. Reposting the VfD happened on the 13th, less than 7 hours later a relisting is most certainly ABUSE. McKay 23:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Votes were tallied on Oct 26 and the VfD tag was removed by RickK on Nov. 2. If it was restored after that and again removed that is inconsequential. Now, if you care to compare Rad Man to the digital-age president of the Louvre, then, well, please point out to me a wikipedia article on any President of the Louvre. -R. fiend 16:20, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Find a president of the Louvre article in Wikipedia. Well the Louvre article helped me out on this one saying, Long managed by the French state... and opened to the public as a museum on 8 November 1793, during the French Revolution., so Napoleon Bonaparte (could probably be considered a past "president" of the Louvre. or look at Presidents of France. Again from Louvre The most recent significant modification of the Louvre was the "Grand Louvre" project, under president François Mitterrand. Yes, a president of france, but (according to wikipedia), he was the man in charge of the mod. The Louvre was still being added to by Napoleon III. These people were, for all intents and purposes presidents of the Louvre (its mostly run by a committee which I think does deserve an article, but I'm not capable of writing it), Sure, they had positions in the leadership of France, but RaD Man is one of the prinicple organizers for Pilgrimage, yes Pilgrimage isn't as important as France, But Notable Nonetheless. And if François Mitterrand wanted to use this page as his user page, I'd let him.McKay 12:22, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think _anyone_ disputes that we _should_ have articles on presidents of the largest art museums in the world. They _certainly_ make the notability bar. — David Remahl 12:33, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Actually, several of us would make that argument. See the recommendations at Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. A president of a large art museum does not unambiguously meet any of the suggested criteria and is not automatically notable. Rossami (talk) 07:30, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Comment on comment: While Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies is a Wikipedia:Semi-policy, it still meets it: Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field The President of the louvre's work virtually is the historical record of that field. Likewise, RaD Man's work is the historical record of the field. This is a little bit of a strecth, because the President of the Louvre didn't create the art, but no art history (the field of the president of the louvre) professor (I've known a couple), would claim that the Louvre is unecessary. What about the other suggested criteria?:
- The professor test, a silly test for the kinds of people like presidents of organizations who don't publish.
- Verifiability. The louvre is about documenting the history of art. Their work is the verification. A silly test for the people who create works of history.
- Expandability. This is a test of the article and its writers mostly, except to say that it could happen.
- 100 Year Test. Yes, the president of the louvre article would be very insteresting, I'm interested, if for no other reason than this discussion, the president of the louvre passes this test. (such a thing could happen for Rad man in the future).McKay 11:24, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Auto-Biography, not for the president of the louvre, how did you miss this one?
- Informative. Could happen for the president of the louvre, and is for RaD Man if you ask me.
- Google Test. "lots" is what's in discussion elsewhere in this section.
- check your fiction. Neither of them are fictional.
- Comment on comment: While Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies is a Wikipedia:Semi-policy, it still meets it: Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field The President of the louvre's work virtually is the historical record of that field. Likewise, RaD Man's work is the historical record of the field. This is a little bit of a strecth, because the President of the Louvre didn't create the art, but no art history (the field of the president of the louvre) professor (I've known a couple), would claim that the Louvre is unecessary. What about the other suggested criteria?:
- Comment: Actually, several of us would make that argument. See the recommendations at Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. A president of a large art museum does not unambiguously meet any of the suggested criteria and is not automatically notable. Rossami (talk) 07:30, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Votes were tallied on Oct 26 and the VfD tag was removed by RickK on Nov. 2. If it was restored after that and again removed that is inconsequential. Now, if you care to compare Rad Man to the digital-age president of the Louvre, then, well, please point out to me a wikipedia article on any President of the Louvre. -R. fiend 16:20, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- By My Calculations, the FvD tag was removed from the article on the evening of 12 Nov 2004. Reposting the VfD happened on the 13th, less than 7 hours later a relisting is most certainly ABUSE. McKay 23:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- By my calculations, October 18, when this was first nominated for deletion, was substantially more than 72 hours ago. As stated on the talk page results were "ambiguous", and I don't think it's a crime to relist a month later in hopes of a less ambiguous result (though whether one can expect such a result is another question entirely). -R. fiend 20:27, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- So while you say that such a person doesn't unambiguously meet any of the criteria, I'm saying he does. McKay 11:24, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- KEEP For gods sake people open your damn myopic eyes. There are more topics than the ones you are already aware of. Radman while not someone many of you would have heard of is a major player in the Demo/Art scenes. Not everyone here knows who the president of Tajikistan is either, would we VfD him because we dont know who he is? Alkivar 02:32, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Even if you list this page a thousand times, and eventually get a majority in favour of deleting it, you still will not have a consensus, and the presumption is to keep articles. The lister ought to be censured for abusing the process. Dr Zen 04:17, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Explain this comment please. 1st VfD was 1 vote shy of 2/3 in favor of deletion. Why is a consensus to delete impossible? -R. fiend 05:30, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I don't have to explain my comment. It's quite clear what I mean. Even if you scrape together enough votes to win a 2/3 majority, you have made no headway on convincing those who were for keeping it that your reasons for wanting it deleted were valid. If the numbers voting are sufficiently large, the 1/3 who oppose a vote form a large enough bloc to stymie any idea of consensus, particularly when they are not members of one faction or another. And while the deletionists are commenting along these lines "Abuse or not, this must go", I think that any pretence that you are aiming for consensus of any kind is ridiculous. It is clear that you are rather hoping to hustle it out by force of numbers. You will keep listing it until you get your majority, claim the vote was consensual and delete the article. You might just as well not bother with the vote and go the whole hog.Dr Zen 05:51, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Sorry, R. fiend, but I think your math is a bit off. The final vote in the previous discussion was 13 delete to 10 keep (with up to 2 probable sockpuppets). Assuming only 8 keeps, this article still would have required 16 clear deletes to achieve 2/3 supermajority. Consensus may be achievable through an immediate re-discussion but it is rare. So far, no one has presented new evidence. Rossami (talk)
- Explain this comment please. 1st VfD was 1 vote shy of 2/3 in favor of deletion. Why is a consensus to delete impossible? -R. fiend 05:30, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep: far more interesting and encyclopedic than Pokémon Video Games (to pick just one of the nominator's intrests). Joe D (t) 23:11, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep but I think it is very tacky to use this as your signature user page, it implies to the world that it is acceptable for wikipedia editors to have articles about themselves. Not that it isn't, per se but it just looks bad in my opinion. also consensus is not majority decision, it is consensus Pedant 03:41, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
This VfD closed on Oct 22. Any votes in this resurrected VfD other than "Abuse of VfD" or "Invalid nomination" have been struck out as invalid. The result of the previous vote still stands.
The Previous VfD linked for completeness's sake
- This is disputed. Vote away. --Improv 15:25, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Some people have different ideas over how long you can wait after a VfD before renomination, whether a consensus was reached or not. I would imagine that "one month from the close of nomination" is a bare minimum for acceptable delay (some believe it should be six months), and that any furfther nomination for this page within one month from teh close of this one (i.e. 19 December) would definitely be invalid, regardless of whether or not consensus is reached. Chris 04:40, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Is this what you imagine or is this a rule? Bear in mind the result of the previous vote was not "keep". A clear majority voted delete, and the result was deemed "ambiguous". I would largely agree with you if the previous VfD yielded a consensus to keep, but that is by no means what happened. Now to be clear, if, as you say, one must wait a month from its previous nomination, and this nomination is invalid, then one would not have to wait a month from now to repost, but simply a month from its last "valid" nomination, correct? I don't want a precedent set wherein some article is nominated every few weeks and every time its filled with votes basically saying "this was here a few weeks ago. keep" until the end of time, without any other rationalization. -R. fiend 16:20, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Article should've been deleted last time, and until we have more of a policy against it, greatly disagree with Chriscf's playing with the vote. --Improv 15:25, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Since no-one has linked to the old vote, would you mind describing why you think the article should be deleted? Now it seems like you're voting delete simply because some people don't like the fact that the article has been relisted so early. — David Remahl 16:33, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Good point. I see the page as being vanity and for a non-notable topic. --Improv 19:51, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- That sounds POVvy to me. This person appears to be a prominent figure in his field of art. Calling the artform "non-notable" is POV. "Vanity", as long as it is neutral, is as far as I know not a basis for deletion. — David Remahl 23:10, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Good point. I see the page as being vanity and for a non-notable topic. --Improv 19:51, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Since no-one has linked to the old vote, would you mind describing why you think the article should be deleted? Now it seems like you're voting delete simply because some people don't like the fact that the article has been relisted so early. — David Remahl 16:33, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable. Bart133 16:42, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Turns up over 6,800 hits on google, topic is notable. GRider 22:48, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Emomali Rahmonov (President of Tajikistan) gets 6,940 results versus RaDMaN who gets 74,600 results this makes him undefiably notable. Alkivar 23:01, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Since I get vastly different google results from you when searching "rad man", I am assuming you searched for "radman", which gets alot of hits, but I didn't see any right away that were the person in question. In fact, your search proves that the title "radman" should, if anything, be the title of an entirely different article. As for "rad man", yes I get over 6,000 hits, but that is not necessarily the ultimate test. Google is a generally a good way to attest non-notability, rather than prove notability. Unless something is totally unknown or completely fabricated it should show up on google, but that does not mean that something that shows up on google a certain number of times is notable. Google is obviously weighted in favor of online and computer-related phenomena. It does help to verify something's existence, but exstence is not the issue here. Looking at a few of these early listings of rad man search results I get alot of pages that really don't help, see: [1] or [2] or [3]. At least pages like this [4] are clearly the right person, but do nothing to establish notability. Perhaps I can be convinced otherwise, but so far I have not been. -R. fiend 03:59, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The article already establishes notability as it stands. The nearly 7,000 related Google hits are just that. GRider 06:19, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Since I get vastly different google results from you when searching "rad man", I am assuming you searched for "radman", which gets alot of hits, but I didn't see any right away that were the person in question. In fact, your search proves that the title "radman" should, if anything, be the title of an entirely different article. As for "rad man", yes I get over 6,000 hits, but that is not necessarily the ultimate test. Google is a generally a good way to attest non-notability, rather than prove notability. Unless something is totally unknown or completely fabricated it should show up on google, but that does not mean that something that shows up on google a certain number of times is notable. Google is obviously weighted in favor of online and computer-related phenomena. It does help to verify something's existence, but exstence is not the issue here. Looking at a few of these early listings of rad man search results I get alot of pages that really don't help, see: [1] or [2] or [3]. At least pages like this [4] are clearly the right person, but do nothing to establish notability. Perhaps I can be convinced otherwise, but so far I have not been. -R. fiend 03:59, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Strong Keep borderline abuse. I guess I have to vote again. I find nothing wrong with this page according to Wikipedia:Deletion policy. The article is well written. Interesting content. Multiple contributors. Encyclopedic. NPOV. It would be silly to have the ACiD page link to a user page. The serious conccern seems to be of fame/nobility (non issue? Wikipedia:Vanity page), but I'll mention a few things anyway. I've heard of the guy before wikipedia. I met him at a conference where he spoke. Got my picture taken with him [5]. He's a legend in his field. A notable artist. The president of the digital-age Louvre. What's not notable? The demoscene? The artscene? ANSI art? Pilgrimage? cracktros? What isn't notable? McKay 16:34, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- All good arguments but you voted above! Perhaps you wouldn't mind shifting your comments up there and refactoring?Dr Zen 22:24, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I thought my previous entry was invalidated so I had to revote. In any case, I intended this entry mostly as a nice summary of the other things that I've written, should I "refactor"? McKay
- All good arguments but you voted above! Perhaps you wouldn't mind shifting your comments up there and refactoring?Dr Zen 22:24, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Incidentally, the previous VfD discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/RaD Man. Note that User:Rossami determined that consensus to delete had not been reached at 23:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC). --Goobergunch 21:20, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep One of the founders of ACiD Productions ANSI artgroup, this in and of itself is notable despite his other achivements ZaQ 10:21, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Far too early, IMO, to revive a VfD for this article. Previous consensus applies. SWAdair | Talk 11:30, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, unless of course the purpose of this is to save some disk space on the Wikipedia server. Then by all means, delete. Biographies of worldwide known computer historians are a dime a dozen, and get in the way of information about science fiction shows and listings of Hollywood actors, which the internet desperately needs. --Jscott 08:52, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Who relisted this? I think it may be appropriate to begin an RFC to at least warn this individual not to do something like this again. anthony 警告 21:02, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep Why is this being deleted? Are you people insane? RaD man is not only notable in his field, but also, along with Jason Scott, who seems to be much maligned in this forum as well, were guests of honor at a rather major annual con I put together here in Cleveland. It is only pure serendipity that I decided to do a random search to see if he was listed today. Come on folks. I had more faith in Wikipedia than this.Froggy 21:15, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC).
- Though he/she only has 5 edits to three pages, this appears to be a genuine user. See this edit from a month ago for example. — David Remahl 21:19, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. And don't clog up VfD with reposts. Why do the deletionists hate this guy so much? ~leif ☺ HELO 00:09, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
![[5]](http://topaz.cs.byu.edu:8080/RaD.jpg){kind=link}
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.