Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Michael Everson: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:17, 27 April 2005 edit2004-12-29T22:45Z (talk | contribs)6,782 editsm →[]← Previous edit Revision as of 18:40, 27 April 2005 edit undoGirlvinyl (talk | contribs)3 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 41: Line 41:
*'''Keep''' or merge with his user page, since he's a user. I think he's more than notable enough, however, to have this article stick around. --] 17:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) *'''Keep''' or merge with his user page, since he's a user. I think he's more than notable enough, however, to have this article stick around. --] 17:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*You can edit or expand the ] article as a "] retaliation". 2004-12-29T22:45Z *You can edit or expand the ] article as a "] retaliation". 2004-12-29T22:45Z
**I agree. Avoiding vanity pages and personal flame wars on[REDACTED] is the reason ] exists. Just take it . --] 18:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:40, 27 April 2005

Michael Everson

Vanity Page nominated by 68.42.0.182

  • keep typical bio page —msh210 20:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • speedy keep -- I have to laugh at this, I really do. The anonymous nominator had only one edit previous to nominating this page for VfD, and that was to the Time Cube article, so his nomination is doubtless in retaliation for my having put up Misplaced Pages:Votes_for_deletion/Time_Cube. I am, of course, the Michael Everson in question, and the article has been on the Misplaced Pages for more than a year now. Irregularities as to its original appearance were discussed at length on its talk page, and everyone was satisfied that it was not a vanity article. Apparently my work for Unicode makes me a minor celebrity, and other Wikipedians of note agreed that the article was noteworthy, neutral, and verifiable -- and it still is, as far as I can see. I am pleased to be one of the Wikipedians with article (http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Wikipedians_with_article), and I do hope the article doesn't get deleted. (See the Dutch version at http://nl.wikipedia.org/Michael_Everson if you are so inclined.) Evertype 21:15, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep; there's already consensus that the article isn't vanity. --Angr/comhrá 21:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep - I was one of the original people who determined that it wasn't a vanity page, and I still maintain that opinion. -- Arwel 23:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Apparent bad-faith nomination. --Carnildo 23:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. This shouldn't even be an issue.
  • Check the history if you would like to see 209.30.65.63's vandalism to what I wrote above. Who are these people? Evertype 00:38, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Page smacks of self-advertising. His claim of celebrity status is unfounded and likely the result of some sort of catatonic delusion of grandeur. GNAA Popeye 01:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, you don't know me, or my work very well, I guess. It was another Wikipedian who called me "a minor celebrity" and I guess having an article about me on the front page of the technology section of The New York Times is some evidence of that. I think it's cool, and fun, and I am neither catatonic nor delusional. Evertype 11:39, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
  • So what, Gene Ray talked about Time Cube on national television and yet you don't seem to think his theories are worth having an article. Also, I was mentioned as a firefox contributor in the New York Times; maybe I should get an article too. GNAA Popeye 14:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the page expounding his theories is not encyclopaedic. It is patent nonsense, pseudo-scientific babble, and the entire article is so POV I think it irredeemable. I said nothing about Gene Ray's own page. With regard to the difference between having a feature article in the Times and being mentioned in it, well, I guess what you're telling us is that you're a begrudger. I'm sorry that my opinions about Time Cube make you and others angry. The level of invective I have received over it, however, says more about others than it says about me. Evertype 15:05, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is not encyclopaedic 68.42.0.182 01:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. How can this not be pure vanity?
  • above comment by User 24.86.165.199 who proceeded to repeat this phrase about a zillion times in a fit of vandalism, which I have now deleted. Soundguy99 01:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP AND SHUT UP. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 01:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. Unicode, whoo-hoo!!! -- 8^D BDAbramson 01:46, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
  • Comment This Vfd appears to be related to this discussion. Seems to support the Time Cube retaliation theory. 63.201.91.192 03:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and sanction nominator. Josh Cherry 04:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable self-advertising. Come on people, he wrote an encyclopedia article about himself and is the only major contributor. This is the definition of vanity that[REDACTED] so likes to get rid of. Misplaced Pages should not be used as a place that you show to your prospective employers how important you are. He already has his bio on his own domain, it doesn't belong here. - 193.77.153.149 05:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- he's done a lot more of note in the real world than most Wikipedians. Sure, he created the article himself, but readily admits to his lack of good judgement at the time. Since, may others have contributed to bring the article to where it is today. Retalitation as per the Time Cube VfD seems likely. Hell, Evertype and I even had a tingle over the same VfD, but he's fine by me. - Longhair | Talk 08:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and kill the socks. Radiant_* 08:57, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Agree with GNAA Popeye. How many thousands of people contribute to ISO standards? Does everyone of them have an article here? No. Why not? Because they aren't really anybody that special. Alexs 09:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of ISO standards. There are ISO standards for concrete and light bulb filaments. The Universal Character Set, however, is a bit of a different animal, in that by encoding people's alphabets, it allows everyone to be able to use their own languages to create new texts and express themselves. The UCS enables the digital preservation of all of the written knowledge of humankind. What people consider notable is my work to ensure that the UCS supports all of the world's writing systems, not just the ones which make big companies money. Evertype 13:18, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've contributed patches to X11 for the truetype sbit renderer and cursors that you see in GTK version of mozilla are my code. Do I have a page on[REDACTED] about this? No. This is totally non-notable junk, especially considering most of it is duplicated on his "personal" website. --Timecop 14:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity is a sin. #bible efnet. --Impi.za 14:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Complete vanity. Even considering his unicode work is noteable, half, if not three fourths, of the article is garbage that isn't noteable to a single person on earth. Strip out the filler vanity lines, and all that's left is a few sentances about his coding. This is an encylopedia, not a blog. Only NOTEABLE info should be in an article, not every little side factoid someone can possibly dig up to make it appear as if a person actually did something considerable. --vetta2 14:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-noteable, vanity. Kryptops 14:42, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Michael Everson likes to self-promote, but at least he's done stuff that he can base that self-promotion on. In any case I don't think we should delete something everytime some random slashdotter says "this is gay". -- Talliesin
  • Comment This is pretty funny.
  • Keep. Everson is a very large figure in the Unicode world, and deserves an encyclopaedic entry; that its content may need to be made less self-promotional is a different issue altogether. This page, if deleted, would likely be reinstated later on anyway by a random outsider wondering why there's no page for someone so well-known. --Sbp 15:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article needs some editing IMHO, it has too many links (maybe Misplaced Pages needs some kind of "autolink" mechanism to be triggered at the discretion of readers), but this is far from a vanity page. Michael Everson's accomplishments are real, and valuable, and his place in Misplaced Pages is well-deserved. -- Non-registered user Javier Candeira, http://barrapunto.com/
  • Delete. The vanity disgusts me. I thought[REDACTED] was around not for vanity but for information. The information present in this entry is of negligible value. His aforementioned "accomplishments" are little more than what one might simply call a "job".-- thelark
  • Delete. I agree with thelark. It sounds roughly like a job. Nothing outstanding enough for your own page in a respectable encyclopedia. --jobeus
  • I don't think that it is a vanity page. I'm not all that vain. I didn't put the link to me in the Misplaced Pages; another Wikipedian did. Months later I added in text from the short bio I keep on my website. I was unaware of Misplaced Pages's policy at that time, but invited people to make sure that it was verifiable and neutral. I believe that it is. I provided some text for an article which has since been edited by others and judged by them to be useful and appropriate. The "parody" you mention is base and offensive, and written by someone who has a lot of hate and a lot of problems, it would appear. All I try to do is make sure that Unicode has all the writing systems of the world in it, so people can use their writing systems on computers. This year I had a wonderful experience, meeting gentle and intelligent people in Bali who helped me to encode their script. That was a pleasure, and I am glad that I was able to help the Balinese people. I am proud of my contributions. I don't think that is "vanity". Evertype 16:27, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
  • Vanity pages have no place in Misplaced Pages. If we allow one to stay on the basis of "it just uses some space", then that same argument will be applied to others. There should be no favouritism. Kryptops 16:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Biography pages of notable people do have a place in Misplaced Pages however.Talliesin 2005-04-27T17:23Z
  • Speedy Keep and ignore trolls, socks, and bitter cultists. Ben-w
  • Keep or merge with his user page, since he's a user. I think he's more than notable enough, however, to have this article stick around. --Badlydrawnjeff 17:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • You can edit or expand the Encyclopedia Dramatica article as a "Time Cube retaliation". 2004-12-29T22:45Z
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Michael Everson: Difference between revisions Add topic