Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yomin Postelnik

Yomin Postelnik

Yomin Postelnik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable political commentator. There are a few mentions of him and a google search turns up columns written by him but that's it. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - lack of media coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Do not delete - Notable Canada Free Press writer who is the subject of a harassment campaign by a militant atheist website for writing an article on the logic for existence of a Creator. Far more prominent than many other writers featured in Wikipedia. They are also trying to have their comments only on his google search and wikipedia stays number one, hence the deletion campaign. He's also been featured on the History News Network, so he's received far more media coverage than others featured on wiki.InsidersReview (talk) -

• Comment – The post above is by InsidersReview. I notice that the subject of the article in question is the founder of Insiders Review Publishing Works. —teb728 t c 04:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep some notability demonstrated ukexpat (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Do not delete Ukexpat has a point. Notability has been demonstrated, not as a writer, but as an internet phenomenon. For starters, the article was started up by Ypostelnik, and all the commotion lately shows pretty clear that Yomin Postelnik won't go anywhere soon. (I am, however, fairly certain that InsidersReview = Ypostelnik and hope that this will be checked out by admins.) --Quevaal (talk) 04:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. The article itself doesn't even describe anything that can be referred to as an "internet phenomenon". WP:COI issues are hardly a reason to keep. I'm afraid I don't understand your argument at all. Could you please clarify? -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 04:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Do not delete Demonstrated more notability than many wiki:bio subjects - target of vandals —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.237.200 (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Do not delete Demonstrated more notability than many wiki:bio subjects - target of vandals —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)~SRoss76.71.237.200 (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Does not come close to meeting the notability required for a WP:BLP or any WP:BIO. His claims of notabilty are "grant writer" (not worthy of note), "consultant for many NPOs" (not worthy of note), "participated in a debate" (unless it was covered by CNN not at all worthy of note), has written for two web commentary sites -- about 20 articles all told (not worthy of note. He'd need to be nationally syndicated or win a Pulitzer or something similar before he's worthy of note as a journalist), "publisher" of his own website (doesn't meet WP:WEB), and has been cited on about.com (as notable as being cited on Wikipedia, I'm afraid, if not less so). In other words, there is absolutely nothing in here that makes this person notable enough for Wikipedia. Also, because I've said all this: closing admin- please courtesy blank -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 04:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Harassment/vandalization campaign launched by AtheistExperiment and an organized effort by RichardDawkins.net posters as outlined in creationistsearcher.wordpress.com and canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3488 "Canada Free Press Columnist Yomin Postelnik Attacked by Atheists." Postelnik is the owner of the MythDebunker sites referenced on this page which have been read by Free Republic members and other conservative posters for years. Noted conservative blogger and columnist in online conservative circles. He is also very much notable to the atheist groups that started this coordinated attempt and if being the Board Member in charge of Development for the United Autism Foundation doesn't count as notability, when coupled with all the above, than one would fail to see how half the wikipedia stubs qualify, most definitely that of Martin Wagner whose supporters initiated this consideration for deletion.74.233.8.66 (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)SRoss—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|74.233.8.66 (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)SRoss]] comment added by 74.233.8.66 (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)SRoss 74.233.8.66 (talk) 05:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete – The only thing in the article that remotely resembles notability is his journalism. And as ShinmaWa points out, it is not nearly enough to meet our notability requirement. —teb728 t c 07:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Do not delete - Postelnik's ideas are worth considering as it brings balance to an otherwise narrow minded and militant discussion by religionists. Evo-evangelists are nearly always given the courtesty of a hearing, while any idea that contradicts is hissed out of the room. A healthy and free exchange of ideas bring scientific and intellectual rewards. Is that so wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.53 (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

*Delete. I agree that it doesn't meet WP:BIO for the reasons cited by others. He is not notable for the work he has done, his organizations do not appear notable except through his own self promoting across the internet. Wikipedia is not about bringing "balance to an otherwise...". This is a dictionary and it is neutral. If you want "balance", then take this post over to conservapedia. Barnetto (talk) 16:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yet he seems extremely notable among conservatives and among the atheist groups that oppose him (Richard Dawkins, Martin Wagner, etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.8.66 (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Really? Do you have any evidence for his being "extremely notable" among conservatives? I have never heard of the guy until shortly before the nomination and I follow a lot of American conservative bloggers. As to your other claims, do you have any evidence that Richard Dawkins cares about this guy at all? And even if he did, not everyone Dawkins's dislikes or mentions is automatically notable. That's not true for anyone (and all the more so since Dawkins would presumably be an opponent and thus not a very reliable source about Postelnik in most contexts). As to Martin Wagner, I don't think he's anywhere near as well-known as Dawkins. Now, if you are claiming that fans of Dawkins and Wagner have sparred with Postelnik then congratulations, fans of notable people get into spats with non-notable people all the time. Welcome to the internet. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Fans of Richard Dawkins? Richard Dawkins himself did a whole feature on Postelnik's article on his site, not the forum http://richarddawkins.net/article,2694,n,n He's also been mentioned, albeit maliciously attacked by Pharyngula, very notible atheist commentator and was "awarded" Moron of the Month by thestubborncurmudgeon.blogspot.com, another popular anti-theist blog. Whatever they have against him, and it seems all about his writing, he has established notability. As for "fans of Martin Wagner," Wagner himself wrote 4 columns on the man, mostly insults and then outlandish accusations and the two have been sparring. But Wagner is not as notable as Postelnik and perhaps you should look into the merit of his wikipedia page instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.8.66 (talk • contribs)

The Dawkins link simply seems to be someone on the site posting one of Postelnik's articles (I can't tell from that page whether it was Dawkins himself or someone else), but again even if it were Dawkins, that doesn't make it noticeable. Nor does being attacked by PZ Myers make one notable. I don't know how else to put this so I'll try to be as blunt as possible: In general, spats about bloggers are not automatically notable. The vast majority of conflict on the internet isn't notable. I know this makes a lot of people on the internet who feel they are engaged in Serious Business a bit upset but this is true for many issues, whether it is religious arguments, arguments about D&D 4.0. v. 3.5 or a hundred other things. As to your comments about Wagner see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I actually looked at his article and decided that while it was not in good shape he was more likely than not to be notable (a google news search turns up many articles about Wagner and his comic). If you think that Wagner is not sufficiently notable you are of course welcome to nominate the article about him for deletion (note however, that the community generally frowns upon purely tit-for-tat deletion nominations). JoshuaZ (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking no position on the delete-or-not issue, but I do wish to clarify what's been going on here regarding this blogger "spat." Mr. Postelnik wrote an article on the Canada Free Press website, the content of which I found so absurd that I mocked and critiqued it on my blog. In the early morning hours of June 12, both the Wikipedia entries for myself and my old comic Hepcats, which I published in the 1990's, were vandalized by an anonymous poster whose IP address corresponds exactly to that in the headers of an email sent by Mr. Postelnik to a friend of mine. The vandalism on the Hepcats entry claimed I was soliciting Paypal payments from readers of the long-defunct comic for new strips at a thrice-weekly schedule, which I was then failing to produce, accusing me of essentially defrauding readers; in fact the site referred to is a fan page whose admin was, with my permission, scanning and posting pages from the original graphic novel there (which she was doing three days a week), and no one had to pay a penny to read any of it. (The Paypal buttons on the site are to order copies of the old graphic novel only, not solicitations of money for new work.) The vandalism on my own page was more serious. It included libelous claims that I was involved with narcotics and been charged with pedophilia. Again, from the same IP. Since this information has been exposed, Mr. Postelnik has, among other things, admitted the IP address was his but claimed that I or one of my "cronies" somehow "faked" it to frame him, and has gone on to accuse me of machinating some kind of online "Google stalking" campaign against him, failing to consider that if he's getting offensive e-mails and phone calls from strangers, it's because he provided all that contact info on the original CFP article. He has lately gone on something of an online rampage, posting to numerous forums like those at RichardDawkins.net and ChristianForums.com, succeeding only in alienating readers to those forums. He has also created four blogs at Blogger.com, specifically for the purposes of posting more vengeful smears against myself, my co-blogger Russell Glasser, and even Joshua Zelinsky. Mw66 (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Dunno how much you hang out in the Wikipedia AfD area, but I've seen this exact sort of thing crop up every week or so around here. Information you can provide regarding the authorship of articles which Yomin Postelnik is providing as proof of his "notability" is useful to our discussion; his personality and behaviour isn't, though, I think. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This should show the personal extent of the vendetta and the frivolous nature of these delete requests. It is Wagner who has been accusing Postelnik of everything under the sun, all without a shred of evidence, all of which Postelnik has denied, and then Wagner incites others to do the same thing to Postelnik that he claims Postelnik did. It would not be surprising if Wagner himself started those blogs, featuring Postelnik's allegation in a further effort to smear Postelnik, as Postelnik has threatened legal action over Wagner's more over the top attacks. Most interesting is Wagner's mention of Joshua Zelinsky, the name featured on the profile of the person who started the request. Perhaps Wikipedia should look into the organized nature of the campaign. It also fails me how the far less notable Wagner is not the subject of the same process on his own Wiki:BIO page.

Thanks AG. Did not mean to add noise. Just wanted to chime in as I saw Mr. Postelnik's accusations of a "harassment/vandalization campaign" have been repeated here by him to support his claims of notability. Mw66 (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• delete - very very non-notable blogger and hobby-reporter, as noted by ShinmaWa. Some "not delete" (?!?) posts seem to have come from Postelnik or his supporters (his own IP address begins with 74.233). Without feature coverage in reliable external third-party sources, this fellow's not notable. Agreed with Barnetto, let him write an article about himself at Conservapedia. 66.82.9.53, Wikipedia is not here for a "healthy and free exchange of ideas" - it's here to present information on notable subjects, which Postelnik is not. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

How AllGloryToTheHypnotoad can consider a blog that's on the official McCain bloglist to be very minor is beyond anyone's guess. It seems that he has a personal animus toward the subject, or how would he come to this definition of Myth Debunker as a minor blog? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.8.66 (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It's simple. We use the criteria lined out in WP:WEB. Also, please remember to assume good faith of the other participants of this debate, even and especially those who disagree with you. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 18:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in WP:WEBstates that a blog that's part of an official presidential campaign list is minor. If you insist that clear personal animus not be mentioned of AllGlory in his overexageratted and factually wrong characterization of the blog then why is it ok to malign and second guess posters of the not delete side as you've engaged in above? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.8.66 (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of which, 74.233.8.66 is probably Yomin Postelnik, as his only edits have been to the Yomin Postelnik article, this AfD, and a request for page protection for the Yomin Postelnik article. As for the "official McCain bloglist" claim - as above. Means nothing unless you've received non-trivial feature coverage in a reliable third-party source that manages to demonstrate the lasting notability of the subject. See WP:N and WP:NOT. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from baseless accusations of posters you disagree with. This alone should portray your vote in its proper light. One would be hard pressed not to call Canada Free Press, which is featured in Wikipedia, About.com's Small Business Canada Page, History News Network and the official blogroll of a presidential campaign anything but third party sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.8.66 (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to log back in to post to this AfD as InsidersReview or Ypostelnik. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Again AGTTH, please refrain from ad-hominen untrue attacks that have nothing to do with the issue being discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.8.66 (talk • contribs)

(e/c) What you fail to understand is that all of this stuff, the articles on CFP, About.com, HNN, etc -- none of this is about the subject. If a reliable third party (i.e. not Mr. Postelnik, not anyone associated with Mr. Postelnik, not a blog, not his own websites, etc.) has written about Mr. Postelnik, then and only then might we consider him notable. However, that does not appear to be the case at this time. All the sources cited are primary sources and that does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 20:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Canada Free Press has written about him. Most recently how he was the target of an atheist harassment campaign (phone calls, etc.) www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3488. About.com cited him as a business loans expert.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.8.66 (talk • contribs)

And who wrote that article by the CFP? What was the editorial process? DigitalC (talk) 06:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

About.com is not generally a reliable source, and simply being a "business loans expert" isn't much of a claim of notability. It also isn't even clear that CFP is either reliable or independent. JoshuaZ (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Canada Free Press is not reliable. And the article subject writes for CFP. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Where do you get that Canada Free Press, a widely read conservative outfit that's quoted repeatedly on conservative radio and is the 47th ranked conservative site of all websites is unreliable? They feature their editorial management on their site and Postelnik isn't included. It seems they find independent value in his work. The lengths that some posters are going to question every source that's ever found Postelnik to be of value, including the article on Dawkin's front page, clearly posted or agree to by Dawkins himself, as it stayed on his homepage for some time, are really a stretch. This parsing of numerous well established sources is something that is rarely seen , is indicative of an exceptional effort to discredit and should be frowned upon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.8.66 (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources need to be independent of the subject. Even leaving aside the question of whether it's a reliable source or not, Canada Free Press is not an independent source on this person, as he's been personally involved with the publication. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

He's in no way involved in the management. They print his columns because they independently find value in them and in his work. The notability established among the atheists who started the campaign against him that Canada Free Press covered also added to his notability. Richard Dawkins did not feature his column on his website (on the front page, not the forum) because it wasn't notable, but rather because it was. As well, 90% of the WP:BIO stubs are of less notable subjects, especially the writer stubs. I can't fathom that the Wiki editors would consider holding him and him along to a ridiculous level of scrutiny that no other WP:BIO stub would generally be subjected to. The subject clearly meets the requirements by any normal application of the standards and beyond and this deletion campaign, more peppered with unproven and possibly unfounded allegations than any recently seen, should be viewed as an offensive waist of time and should be administratively closed, simply by applying universal standards.

He doesn't have to be involved in the management to be affiliated with the paper. The fact that they publish his work makes him affilated with it, and means that they can't be considered an independent source about him. Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. GreenJoe 00:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Do not delete - Established notability in third party sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.74.182 (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC) — 65.2.74.182 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete per nom, nn. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the last three delete posters all readily identify themselves with the far left on their talk pages (one quotes Lenin and denounces capitalism, one is a prominent GLBT activist and one an environmental activist). This is not a problem but does lend credence to the notion advanced that this is a vendetta campaign against a conservative leaning columnist rather than a substantive post or a legitimate concern(though Postelnik has never written against GLBT to my knowledge and his only article that comes up on the environment is not wholly against the environmentalist cause but against some of their widely held beliefs). It seems that the neutral posters have decided that at the very least the stub merits a weak keep, many adding stronger "keep" or "do not delete" support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.8.66 (talk) 06:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yomin, I'm hurt that you failed to point out that I too am non-neutral, being a main contributor to an article on a secret neo-Nazi Satanist organization. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the article objectively fails to meet Wikipedia's requirements as spelled out in WP:V, WP:N and WP:RS. There's absolutely no vendetta here. I, for one, had never even heard of the guy in my life until this AFD came up, and I'm most certainly not known around here as an editor who has a problem keeping my personal politics out of my editorial contributions. Note, frex, that I removed unsourced and non-neutral commentary from our articles on several Conservative Party of Canada MPs just last week — even though I personally agree with the commentary in question, it was unsourced opinion, not objective, neutral or sourced content, and hence has no place in our article. And incidentally, there's nothing inherently "far left" about LGBT or environmental issues. This line of argument stops now. Bearcat (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about non-referenced comments that already sound as if they were over the top. This is about holding one bio stub to a level of scrutiny that no other stubs receive and that 95% of the others don't match (and this one clearly does meet the standards). Somehow because he's on the opposite side of an issue you reject all referenced third party sources that the other 95% would be lucky to have, others malign his character, people here log on repeatedly and with a vengeance and some try to pull up links or detail elaborate conspiracy plots peppered with baseless accusations to try to lessen the arguments to keep. That 3 posters who are clearly on the opposite political side of the subject are trying to hold him to a level of scrutiny that few if any other stubs would pass is very telling and should rightly be pointed out.

What third-party sources? The article doesn't contain a single independent reference; they're all organizations and media outlets that he's personally involved with. Third-party sources have to be independent of the article subject. Bearcat (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That's been discussed and refuted. Subject is not involved with About.com (Guide to Small Business Loans Canada), not involved with the History News Network and is not on the board of Canada Free Press, that seems to find value in his work despite lack of any other affiliation with them. It seems that a tremendous double standard is being sought that is not in the interest of fairness. I hope this clears that up. Google search also turns up an unusually high number of hits, contrary to the assertion made at nomination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.8.66 (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

History News Network isn't cited as a source anywhere in the article — it's just mentioned, which isn't the same thing at all. The fact that he's not on the board of Canada Free Press is irrelevant; he's been published in the newspaper, and the source being cited from there is a list of the articles he's published in the paper, not an article about him. I'm going to repeat this again: to meet the holy troika of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV, sources need to be independent third party references about Yomin Postelnik. Not articles in which he's quoted as offering advice, not archives of his own writing, not simply unreferenced mentions of his involvement in other organizations, not his own blog: articles published by independent sources or media outlets about him. There isn't a single such source in the article. There's absolutely no double standard going on here. Bearcat (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, 188 Google hits is not "an unusually high number of hits", especially since most of them are forum posts or articles by him. And counting Google hits isn't a valid metric of notability anyway. We consider the quality of sources, not raw numbers of text matches. Bearcat (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you might even find that most of those 188 google hits came from the past week's troll-war on the internet. Not exactly an indication of lasting notability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I just looked through some. The History News Network accounts for many. Others discuss a financial literacy initiative he started and a course he wrote on financial literacy that got approved by a school board and used by the United Way. I'd say there's established notability. Very little comes from the flame wars, which are what started the deletion request, something that should be considered vandalism.

Yomin, it's very disingenuous to continually post to this discussion as an anonymous IP (74.233.8.66) and speak about yourself in the third person. You have 2 named accounts here that you've used in the past week, it'd be more honest to use one of them. I haven't yet applied to get you banned for this behaviour, but I can. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You've made that allegation repeatedly, which is a) false, this is not Yomin Postelnik himself posting and b) is in violation of multiple requests by wiki to assume good faith. The clear animus of the posters, the dogged repeatedness of their visits to this discussion and the rehashing of false and defamatory accusations by some that have nothing to do with the substance of the issue discussed should provide clear guidance to the nature of the motives of some of the voters for deletion.

The fact is that the subject is being held to ridiculous and often absurd scrutiny that no other WP:BIO stubs and is currently the subject of a very public spat with a certain group of people that have a clear agenda. It seems shameful that certain posters fail to realize that were Wikipedia to delete the entry under the circumstances that their reputation as a fair source would be seriously tarnished by any standard. It's ok to be mad at the man but to take things to this ridiculous length is unseemly and it's unfair to wikipedia to be dragged in, hence a move for closing admin- please courtesy blank.