Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doogin

Doogin 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 delete

Doogin

Vanity article on an unencyclopedic topic. Joyous 20:00, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete - speedily, preferably, this talk page has been blanked once by the page creator already. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 20:14, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - also note the page creator removed the vfd tag twice. — [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker দ (talk)]] 20:28, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - note that Doogin is a figurehead in the neo-transcendentalist movement at Carleton University. — User:Youngbuck (talk)]] 20:34, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Note that this user's user page says "see Doogin", and that their three edits to date are two to Doogin and one here. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 20:41, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Please provide a valid reason why Doogin should not be included in this encyclopedia. He is an important contemporary figure in the neo-transcendentalist movement. -- User:BillyPete ☺ | Talk 20:44, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Because I can find no content anywhere that verifies this as a legitimate subject outside what you or your sockpuppets have added to this article, or to this discussion. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 20:59, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Note that User:Youngbuck has vandalized this page by changing delete votes to keep. Gamaliel 05:36, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - Doogin is a historical figure in the making, and deserves a spot in any encyclopedia. — [[User:BillyPete|BillyPete দ(talk)]] 20:48, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Note that this user's only edits have been to the article in question, to User:Youngbuck and to this discussion. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 20:56, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. Gamaliel 20:50, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: It's nonsense. However, no one needs to provide a reason why it shouldn't be in: the article has to establish a reason why it is appropriate to an encyclopedia. Geogre 21:36, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Note: "When expressing an opinion, please include your opinion, your reasoning, and sign with ~~~~ (four consecutive tilde characters)." (My emphasis.)Dr Zen 02:24, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Being a competent reader is a good thing. "It's nonsense" is a reason. However, this chimera of "notability is not a criterion" is an absurdity. The burden of proof is on a submission. Again: folks can check the URL and see that they're not on Everything2.com. Geogre 05:52, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I was not disputing the validity of your reason, only your assertion that "no one needs to provide a reason why it shouldn't be in", which is clearly contrary to the policy that I quoted for you. The "burden of proof" is on the would-be deleter. That is why a reason for deletion is required, why we are admonished to keep articles where there is any doubt, and also why there is no requirement for every new article to pass Votes for Inclusion.Dr Zen 01:56, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Vainity nonsens is for me a good enough reason for deletion. Jeltz 21:55, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsensical vanity. -- Scott $e^{i\pi }\,\!$ 21:58, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: maybe a jocular hoax; nonsensical, vanity, trivia even if true. Hoary 02:51, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete vanity - Cdc 06:37, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Just thought I'd point out that our friend has taken the liberty of changing all the votes to "keep" (unlike last time, when he just blanked the page—perhaps he thought this would be less noticeable?), as well as vandalizing Scott e^iπ's user page. — [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker দ (talk)]] 14:19, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just a note there Scott coolster.. I didn't blank your page. I left a comment. Care to tell everyone what that comment might have been? nerd.

• That comment ("Just a note there . . . nerd") was added by 134.117.82.86 at 15:15, 6 December. IP numbers 134.117.0.0 - 134.117.255.255 belong to Carleton University, samspade informs us. Vandalism was perpetrated by 69.198.165.0 (an IP belonging to Rogers Cable, Inc. of Toronto): Scott's entire page was blanked and replaced by the one-word comment "nerd". The latter IP number has been very active (click the link to see more). -- Hoary 08:39, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons above. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 17:08, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Doogin is a teacher for all and a great man. He will be regarded by Historians as an influential leader that helped a generation find themselves. To delete him from this encyclopedia would be equal to deleting Herodotus from the annals of History - an irresponsible crime and a Historical degradation.
  • Anonymous votes are not counted. --Improv 18:28, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. If you're really nice, you not only get a cookie but a lesson from the great man himself on basic punctuation and capitalization skills.  :^) Sockpuppets and Wikilove do not mix. - Lucky 6.9 22:25, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. When the historians start scibblin' try again. Wyss 01:01, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedia vanity. I love the sockpuppet's assertion that the author of two unpublished works, whose existence is unconfirmable outside of an article he wrote himself, is equivalent to Herodotus. Do narcissists ever realize how silly they look to other people? —No-One Jones ^(m) 02:02, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Well yes, but even Herodotus started small.Dr Zen 02:14, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Silly??? Who uses that word?
    • That question ("Silly??? Who uses that word?") was posed at 17:52, 7 Dec 2004 by our Canadian contributor 69.198.165.0. This prompts me to ask one of my own: Is there any non-silly reason why this silly would-be article deserves more deliberation than that faced by a speedy? -- Hoary 08:20, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Who hasn't stored illegal immigrants in their closet? - Lifefeed 02:10, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete.
  • Anonymous votes are not counted. --Improv 18:28, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep -- 13 is reason enough to keep.
  • FYI: The above anonymous user has just a single contribution, which was to add the vote above. — [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker দ (talk)]] 06:09, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Struck that out. Anonymous votes are not counted. --Improv 18:28, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. --Improv 18:28, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity page. Those college pranksters! --MPerel 22:16, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:33, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Dpbsmith is right. Again! DoPpelgangerBSmith 20:31, 1 Apr 2007 (UTC)
  • Vanity for sure! Vanity, vanity! Ecclesiastes 20:32, 1 Apr 2007 (UTC)
  • Plus also, vexation of spirit, too! KingSolomon 20:33, 1 Apr 2007 (UTC)
  • And contributor is so stoooopid he doesn't even know it's Carleton College, not Carleton University! BeautifulNorthfieldOntario 20:34, 1 Apr 2007 (UTC)
  • umm.. its carleton university ya twit, located in ottawa ontario. what the fuck are you sayin? Comment added anonymously at 22:52:34 11 December 2004 (and not 2007) by 69.198.165.0 -- not the first time this number has appeared on this page (see above, and contributions).

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.