Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel C. Boyer

See User talk:Daniel C. Boyer --Daniel C. Boyer 15:02, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Delete - I haven't seen a good reason to keep vanity pages regardless of who they are. The fact that this was returned by the very person it is about makes it questionable. - Tεxτurε 16:18, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • No vote, but if you would bother to read any of the stuff you are ignoring, whether or not this is a vanity page has been a subject of some dispute. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:08, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • I am aware of the dispute. I am also aware that it is you reintroducing the article. - Tεxτurε 20:18, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • And I can only conclude, due to your repeated, repeated ignoring everything I say, that you are disingenuously saying this. You deleted the redirect due to a facetious interpretation of the rules and continue to ignore it originally being an article, not something from userspace, and the temporary nature of the compromise. Clearly the way to have dealt with it, if you wanted to delete the redirect, was to list it on VfD rather than use facetious intepretations to deal with it through speedy deletion. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:30, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
        • How long has this "temporary compromise" been in effect? - Tεxτurε 14:34, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
          • It doesn't matter. You were free to try to end it at any time by placing Daniel C. Boyer on VfD. That is what you should have done rather than using speedy deletion. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:51, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
            • Speedy deletion was used correctly on the redirect. Why are you avoiding the question? - Tεxτurε 15:05, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
              • I have discussed in a great amount of detail why speedy deletion was not correct. The redirect in question had been edited from what was initially an article, not ever being a user page or having the character thereof. That is enough to show that it does not fall under rule 7. The compromise seems to have dated back to August 9 at 2:28 a.m. but it seems to have become difficult to tell because the history does not show the same amount of back-and-forthing I remember (perhaps the moves have caused this problem?). Now please answer my questions. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:14, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
                • I have answered your question repeatedly and it is in the box below from VfU. The redirect was the result of a move to user space and was deleted.- Tεxτurε 15:21, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • A temporary compromise move to your user space since August seems due for review and this is a good medium. - Tεxτurε 15:21, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • I will agree that it is due for review but this is the proper forum. It should never have gone through speedy deletion. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:30, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Andris 17:26, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Del. --Wik 17:40, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. anthony (see warning) 20:04, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Boyer can keep information about himself on his userpage (that is what it is there for). Boyer wrote this page himself
  • You are knowingly lying. It has been documented ad nauseum that Tim Starling wrote the page. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:30, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• and it produced endless fights last summer (for those who weren't around). Beyond being vanity,
  • I still question why you describe this as vanity. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:30, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• this page will never be neutral since Boyer will certainly defend himself against anything negative,
  • This is a presumption, nothing more. Show me where I have ever disputed antyhing negative simply because it is negative, not because it is factually inaccurate, something many people seem to play fast and loose with when it comes to subjects they don't like. Facts, as opposed to presumptions and jumping to conclusions, should be used as the basis for writing articles. I think that I should be permitted to challenge factually-inaccurate material in the Talk page even with the new Autobiography rules. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:30, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• and "non fans" will continually add information that Boyer will not like.
  • So what? The point isn't whether I like it; a lot of encyclopedia articles here and elsewhere, I'll wager, have material in them that the subject wouldn't like. I'll say right now that the issue isn't whether the material in Daniel C. Boyer will be flattering to me, the issue is whether it's true (a lot of material added by people who have had no other aim than to serve as my detractors has been flat-out false), significant and relevant. Edit away. I'll also wager, however, that you will duck this just as you've repeatedly ducked so many questions and requests for clarification on my part. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:30, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• (Also, although different wikipedias certainly have different policies, the french wikipedia long ago deleted Boyer's page there.)
  • It is objectively true that the French wikipedia broke its own rules in order to delete the french Daniel C. Boyer page. Research this and you will see that this is true. So I don't think this is a good justification. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:30, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Maximus Rex 20:18, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. The page is uninformative,
  • I mainly agree. However, this is an argument for heavy editing, rather than for deletion. I have repeatedly stated that my main activities have been in visual art rather than in publication and this has been just as repeatedly totally ignored. It's as if we wrote an article on Winston Churchill and focussed on his painting. We could argue that the page was uninformative and irrelevant and we'd be right, but should the page then be deleted? --Daniel C. Boyer 14:30, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• and much of the material is difficult to verify. Moreover, Boyer has previously added misleading information about himself on at least two occasions,
  • Please give cites rather than make these unsupported allegations. And I'd like to hear what you have to say, on the other hand, about those who have added flatly false material to the article on me. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:30, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• and the effort required of other editors in fact-checking his autobiographical contributions is better invested elsewhere.
  • But my understanding is there won't be any further contributions as the new Autobiography policy countermands this in the article space. Furthermore, is your argument that the laziness of the editors should be used as a standard? --Daniel C. Boyer 14:30, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• [User:UninvitedCompany|UninvitedCompany]] 21:19, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Redelete. I've copied the discussion from Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion below as Anthony and Daniel kept trying to remove it. Angela. 22:20, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • I think this is the best way to deal with it though, moving the discussion here. I'm sorry if by removing it (the discussion) caused difficuties; it was just that since I was removing my request for undeletion, I was going to remove Daniel C. Boyer from the VfU page. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:30, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • This page was never deleted in the first place. anthony (see warning) 22:26, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Content can go on a user page. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:23, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have removed de-headinged two lines just below (inside the box), at least one of which is causing edits to be mislocated. --Jerzy(t) 02:37, 2004 Apr 9 (UTC)

FORMER HEADING: From VfU (this VfU listing was referring to a redirect, not the current page) FORMER HEADING: Daniel C. Boyer Improperly deleted through speedy deletion. --Daniel C. Boyer 22:06, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC) Speedy deleted according to candidates for speedy deletion #7: "Redirects with no history which have been created by moving user pages out of the article space." The only page history for this page was the single entry: Wik (moved to "User:Daniel_C._Boyer/temp") - Tεxτurε 22:35, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC) This is technically correct, and I would argue that the rule in general should be respected. However, if you will examine the reasons why this was done, you might see why I am suggesting this may be an exception to the rule: the User:Daniel C. Boyer/temp article is a temporary solution for people who objected to there being an article on me in the main namespace. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:12, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) The short argument above, that it is a temporary solution for people who objected to it being in wikispace, argues (IMO) for keeping the redirect deleted per candidates for speedy deletion #7. You are asking for an exception to a rule that you agree should be respected. Please state your case for a special exception. - Tεxτurε 16:30, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) I have. The User:Daniel C. Boyer/temp page is not truly a user page; it is a page that was created for no other reason than to temporarily (as the very name suggests) move material that there was a dispute as to the inclusion of in the main article space (see the dispute heading on User:Daniel C. Boyer/temp and see also [[1]]). Furthermore, it happened the very opposite of the way the rule states; an article was moved to the user space -- the least that could be said is that there is substantial debate as to whether it should be an article or no. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:38, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) Leave deleted. If my memory serves me well, the redirect was a temporary compromise between those who wanted to keep the page and those who wanted to delete it. The delay was to provide (a) a cooling off period, and (b) an opportunity for then-ongoing discussions about inclusion standards to resolve themselves. Both these objectives have been reached. Given the history (of which User:Texture was unaware), this page should perhaps have been listed on VfD first. However, it does fall within the rules for speedy deletions, and neither the page itself nor the "temp" page to which it pointed is appropriate for the encyclopedia. Thus, it should remain deleted. UninvitedCompany 16:53, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) Could Uninvited Company clarify whether he is complaining about the existence of the User:Daniel C. Boyer/temp page and the Daniel C. Boyer page per se, or about the content of those pages? Because I have a lot of complaints about the content as well, complaints I have extensively aired. Chiefly, it is that it focusses on these publications when my chief activity has been in exhibitions in visual art. I have asked repeatedly why this is but no answer has been forthcoming. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:56, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC) Move the temp page back. There is no consensus for its deletion. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 04:51, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC) Undelete, should never have been deleted Lirath Q. Pynnor Keep deleted - Tεxτurε 02:37, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC) Keep deleted. Maximus Rex 16:20, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC) Undelete. Saying that User:Daniel C. Boyer/temp was a user page moved out of the article space is at least misleading as to the reason for the existence of this article. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:14, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC) I don't see why you don't just move it back. That doesn't require undeletion. anthony (see warning) 21:23, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC) Anthony was suggesting that you move the article out of your talk space, not that you create a redirect that was already deleted. If you move the article I cannot delete it under deletion guidelines. The redirect was recreated that was deleted under Candidates for speedy deletion #7. I have deleted the redirect under Candidates for speedy deletion #5 since it was not undeleted by a concensus from the Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion page. - Tεxτurε 14:18, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC) Daniel, I have moved the talk content you have written to your user talk space so that nothing is lost: User talk:Daniel C. Boyer/undelete - Tεxτurε 14:27, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC) Find responses to all this at User talk:Daniel C. Boyer --Daniel C. Boyer 16:07, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC) My response as posted there: If your only objection to Anthony's suggestion to move it back is that it will go on VfD then I don't see your reason as valid. Otherwise, everyone who loses a vote will move the articles deleted to their user space and create redirects from article space to user space. If the undelete vote is to restore the redirect then it will be undeleted. If the undelete vote is to keep it deleted then you can either accept that or move the article back and deal with any VfD vote if it happens. - Tεxτurε 17:44, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC) Keep deleted. --Wik 00:34, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC) Blocking off VfU discussion so it isn't confused. - Tεxτurε 00:11, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, unless it can be written from scratch by someone other than Boyer. Brockert 23:48, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • I would be more than happy to have this done (pointing out, however, that the original article was written by Tim Starling, as has been extensively documented). Would you like to give it a go? --Daniel C. Boyer 14:30, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Someone else can put it back up once the kid is no longer merely an "aspiring" artist. We all aspire to lots of things. Articles should be limited to what people actually are and what they did. Otherwise, I want my own article, too. Postdlf 12:29 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • If you would bother to do any research whatsoever you would be able to see a number of things I have actually done. I'm not asking for credit for aspirations (this would be ridiculous). --Daniel C. Boyer 14:30, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• The flurry of defence of article-Daniel_C._Boyer by user-Daniel_C._Boyer supports the assertion made on this page that he will not allow any criticism of the article should it be allowed to remain - Tεxτurε 14:34, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • You have got to be kidding me. This is a garbled and nonsensical (how am I going to prevent any criticism of -- what? the existence of the article? the material in the article? [I think I've criticized that enough]) assertion. And what are you using it to support? That we should not have articles on any individual who we think might criticise their existence or their content? If imposed this standard would destroy any pretence to NPOV that Wikipedia has (articles should be free to exist or not exist and any arguments for or against them by their subjects should be taken on their own merit, nothing more) as it would prevent the existence, or colour the content, of articles either to defy, or mollify, cantankerous subjects. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:51, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)