Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Lane (sedevacantist)

John Lane (sedevacantist)

I initiated the entry on John Lane (sedevacantist) from personal knowledge as a 'fellow-Traditionalist', and from websites on the Internet with the intent of recording the history and personae of the Catholic Traditionalist movement. A person or persons claiming to be the subject of the entry and or his allies have 'vandalized' the page and reduced it to a ridiculous situation, with the intent that the page be deleted. As initiator of the entry, and in disgust at the behavior of these persons, which behavior prove that the subject is not worthy of an encyclopedia entry, except possibly from a viewpoint of notority, I vote for the deletion of the page. My Wikidness 16:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that this article should not be deleted. If it be deleted I foresee it will easily be recreated by someone else, and the same issues may be rehashed. It appears a reason given here for deletion is that this article became controversial. If this were a valid reason, the Wikipedia article on the Holocaust or Christopher Columbus, and many others, would also be deleted.

The following further reasons to keep this article....

• The subject of this article (John Lane) has weighed in on this article on Wikipedia and has shown that he believes the description of "famous" applies to him. He had no objection to that description when making several other edits to the article.
• In the world of Roman Catholicism, the Traditionalist Catholic is a major subject, most notably the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). This Society spends considerable time writing articles against Sedevacantism because among Traditionalist Catholics they are the next biggest group that opposes that Soceity for alleged errors.
• Among laymen associated with this priestly Society (SSPX), considerable time is spent on Internet discussion forums talking about the Sedevacantists.
• The subject of this article considers himself one of the "world's leading lay sedevacantists" according to an advertisement for a conference that was held in upstate New York in 2002.
• The CMRI, a major portion of sedevacantist Catholics, has just invited John Lane to their yearly conference in 2006 to give some talks, and to give the keynote banquet speech.

I think it is clear enough that this contemporary article is necessary, and if deleted, it will once again be created. I think progress has been made so far, and it has been well-established that more citations need to be used for various statements. Vandalism is not unusual on Wikipedia and this cannot be used as an argument to delete an article. --Glossando 23:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Glossando, - I believe that vandalism is intellectual terrorism. I do not ordinarily believe in giving into terrorism. However, as this seems to be merely a three-way controversy involving Mr. Lane (& Brian Boru IV and other of his allies), you and me, and as no other person / contributor seem to be interested to intervene, such as by protecting the page, etc., I do not see what good purpose can be served by this unseemly fight. If you can bring in more people, such as to protect the page from the Lanistas' intellectual terrorism, it would serve some good purpose. Incidentally, I believe that in my original write-up, I did provide reference webpages, references which were edited out by "Mr. Lane", Boru, etc. themselves, as far as I know (e.g. http://www.catholicintl.com/debate/debate.html). It is strange that "Mr. Lane" objects to facts collated here from those webpages, but not to those webpages themselves. He should, if he were honest, go to those pages and vandalize them with "citations required" notices all over them. But it is far more easier to do that with Wikipedia than at other places. Actually, I realize that Lane and Co. are a sectarian cult and I have a shrewd guess as to the real reason for their objection to this page. I have seen how they treated a recent interlocutor, Quirinus (http://quaesitoresfidei.blogspot.com/), on their St. Bellarmine forum (http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=178&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0), and it is typical of a sect or cult. Just for the record, I am not "Quirinus". I had been personally in correspondence with M/s. Daly & Lane a few years ago, and recently with another of the Lanistas. -- My Wikidness 02:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

____________________________________________

Delete or not, I don't care. But I want the original version deleted. It's libellous and even as an historical relic it should be expunged.

What is going on here is merely that a person with some malign agenda as a result of a personal disappointment (now openly admitted) has invented facts about me and published them here, and objects to my attempts to have these things rectified. Glossando appears to have (belatedly) begun to follow the guidelines here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biographies_of_living_persons

I read that this morning for the first time and it describes my own experience to a "t."

But Mr. Wickedness seems entirely ignorant of Wikipedia rules and guidelines.

As for the lack of objection to the use of the word "famous," Mr. Glossando, that was one of many words I thought inaccurate but not actually libellous, when I edited the article originally. I also left in numerous examples of bad English generated by the original author. This purely negative argument of yours therefore adds nothing to the discussion. If "fame" is measured in the awareness of a few hundred people that one exists and has an opinion, then I am famous. But I suspect even Andy Warhol would struggle to grant me that particular tag.  :)

John Lane.

_____________________________________________

Mr. Lane, I have verified your IP address and am certain you are who you say you are. However, I have always acted in accord with the rules. Nothing belated about it. You have not. And it appears not only are you in league with the vandalism of Brian Boru (possibly even a sock puppet), but out of your ignorance of WP rules, you were also in violation severely, and basically demanded things without any proper discussion. Try to do the same to ANY watched article on Wikipedia and you will get reactions like mine. You were in violation, not I. And do you think further that when a month ago you conceded to the CMRI advertisement about you and then come here now and put requests for citations over the most common facts even contained in that ad you conceded to...that you should be taken seriously? Or making your own edits and keeping request for citations on them is a serious thing to do here? Things like that make it appear to be disruption, and for things like that reverts are expected. Don't complain. Would you like to now categorically deny you know who that person is behind Brian Boru IV's vandalisms? I have more to say, but I will leave it for the article's discussion page. --Glossando 11:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)