Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tilman Hausherr (3rd nomination): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 01:19, 21 March 2007

Tilman Hausherr

Tilman Hausherr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Note.

AFD started: 20 March 2007

Nomination statement

This article previously survived 2 AFDs. In both the first AFD, and the 2nd AFD - the result was Keep. Recently, a discussion was brought up to merge the entire article into the article Opposition to cults and new religious movements. The discussion is at Talk:Opposition to cults and new religious movements. This AFD will serve to formally discuss the appropriateness or lack thereof of any such "Merge." Smee 07:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on nom statement

Comment on nom statement - While the stated purpose of this AfD as a discussion of a merge is decidedly odd and may be misuse of the AfD process, I think that there is sufficient question as to the notability of the subject to warrant this AfD, irrespective of the outcome of previous AfDs. It is odd that an AfD is being brought by a nom that thinks the article should be kept and, again, I wonder if it is a misuse of the process. It might be more appropriate if this AfD were resubmitted by an editor that feels that the article should be deleted and perhaps this AfD should be "shelved" pending such a submittal. --Justanother 17:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: - No, actually it is a used practice to send an article you think is notable to AFD, in order to "test" its notability as a standalone article. This is most certainly appropriate, specifically because "Merge" discussions commonly take place within AFD discussions. Smee 18:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It was indeed a clever move and I support it. If the article survives this AfD, I hope that it will stop similar moves once and for all. --Tilman 18:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the intention - to have a referendum once and for all on whether to Keep, or Merge or Delete the article in question... Smee 18:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

AFD discussion

COMMENT: -- As nom, I will not "vote" a particular sentiment, though I do think the subject is notable and the article is certainly adequately sourced with reputable secondary sourced citations. However I will state that this action of the merge discussion at Talk:Opposition to cults and new religious movements, and the placing of the merge tags at the 2 associated articles and the constant re-adding of them amounts to a revenge/harassment tactic, as delineated by the subject of the article, User:Tilman. Smee 07:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep subject is notable for other things than cult opposition ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 10:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since Tilman and I have worked/are working together this isn't a formal vote, even though an AfD isn't supposed to be a "vote" anyway. If Tilman Hausherr were only a critic of Scientology, I'd agree with the merge proposal. After all, he would belong in such a category if that was all that could be known for. In my opinion his software development and the coverage it has received clearly makes him notable for more than being a Scientology critic.
Hausherr's Xenu's Link Sleuth software was called the "fastest link-checking software" by PC Magazine.
To be fair though, since he did include the name "Xenu's" I understand why some Scientologists may feel he is a full time critic. However such people are most likely forgetting that the bulk of time spent on the application involves programming/coding, the name is almost an afterthought. (Which means if a person spends 100 hours developing a program, and then takes two seconds to call it the no FAT chicks file manager, said person could be called insensitive but would have to be called a developer. Especially if the software works.) Anynobody 10:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he is notable in the anti-cult world, and the article is adequately sourced from third party publications. I'd argue that the article is keepable on this basis alone, irrespective of the notability of Hausherr's software. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- no new arguments that weren't already examined and rejected in the first two AfDs, which frankly makes this seem quite like an attempt to get around the results of the first two AfDs. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why would you propose a deletion (AFD) to settle a merge debate. Wouldn't a merge be prefereable to a deletion? I still support a merge with a redirect from Tilman to Opposition to cults. I am not very familiar with AFDs. I don't know what this means for the merge, but in order to be fair go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Opposition_to_cults_and_new_religious_movements#Tilman_Hausherr_merge John196920022001 15:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- User:John196920022001, if you feel that the article should be merged, then you should change your sentiment from "Keep" to "Merge." Smee 21:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Non-notable critic of Scientology with a couple of minor mentions; also he has a website and a lawyer sent him a letter (dime a dozen). Non-notable developer of one bit of non-notable software that got a magazine mention five years ago (again both are dime a dozen). The non-notability of Xenu's Link Sleuth is abundantly pointed out by the fact that, other than the five-year old magazine mention, the main "source" to establish notability is of the sort; "someone actually used it". --Justanother 16:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was likely featured in PC-Welt magazine sometime in fall 2006, since they asked me for permission. Your "five years ago" theory is because that was all you could find. I suggest you look further, and also at google print. [1] --Tilman 21:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Tilman added a Google Books search to his existing comment so I will speak to that) Add Xenu to the search as in Xenu+"Link Sleuth" and you get five hits [2]. These sorts of books list tons of programs for web design and maintenance; often including a CD chock full of freeware and shareware. Not particularly notable. --Justanother 21:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are different ways to write "Xenu's", that is why. Some don't write His name at all: [3]. These books mention the shareware that is relevant, i.e. notable. The hit counter (which is administered by the ISP software, not by me) of the Xenu page is at over a million. [4] --Tilman 22:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page illustrates my point - non-notable software in a sea of similar non-notable software. The hit counter is illustrative of the synergy Tilman Hausherr developed by linking unrelated software to the internet meme of Xenu. I do not know if Tilman Hausherr is notable for being the first to promote the criticism of another person's religion by means of naming an unrelated software program (I will spare you the analogies I can dream up) but I doubt that we will find RS crediting Tilman Hausherr with that "honor" anyway. (Not to mention the software and this article promoting Tilman Hausherr's reprehensible attempts to blacklist and cause trouble for ordinary public Scientologists.) --Justanother 22:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tilman, I am simply basing that on the article as is appropriate. If there is more notability then add it. --Justanother 17:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not allowed to edit my own article. I am thankful for others who do, and who make constructive changes and additions. --Tilman 17:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am Tilman Hausherr, so no vote. The orginal merge request was made in bad faith and is part of a campaign against me, examples: [5][6][7][8][9]. Since I've been active in several fields, it is ridiculous to merge the article in the "cult opposition" article, which does not even have a "people" section. --Tilman 17:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn.... Delete Misou 18:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Misou, please provide a reason or your "vote" will carry no weight. Thanks. --Justanother 20:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Is notable enough to have a fair few pages linking to him, and since the article (briefly) covers both his work as a software developer and as an anti-Scientology campaigner, a merge to either would be confusing. Iridescenti 22:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep; it is true that most of Hausherr's notability derives primarily from his anti-Scientology campaigning. However, as per Iridescenti's point above, the fact that his program has received notable coverage as well means that a simple redirect would be inappropriate. I also applaud Mr. Hausherr for handling this in the proper fashion and avoiding WP:COI. — Krimpet (talk/review) 01:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I certainly don't think a merge is appropriate. There is at least some verifiable information that shows that subject is notable in more than one field. Vivaldi (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 *'''Weak keep''' Is notable enough to have a fair few pages linking to him, and since the article (briefly) covers both his work as a software developer and as an anti-Scientology campaigner, a merge to either would be confusing. <font face="verdana"> [[User:Iridescenti|<font color="orangered">'''Irides'''</font><font color="darkviolet">'''centi'''</font>]]</font> 22:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Weak keep'''; it is true that most of Hausherr's notability derives primarily from his anti-Scientology campaigning. However, as per Iridescenti's point above, the fact that his program has received notable coverage as well means that a simple redirect would be inappropriate. I also applaud Mr. Hausherr for handling this in the proper fashion and avoiding [[WP:COI]]. — [[User:Krimpet|Krimpet]] ([[User talk:Krimpet|talk]]/[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Krimpet|review]]) 01:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Weak keep''' I certainly don't think a merge is appropriate.  There is at least some verifiable information that shows that subject is notable in more than one field. [[User:Vivaldi|Vivaldi]] ([[User talk:Vivaldi|talk]]) 01:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)