Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rolf Potts

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rolf Potts

Minor writer. No sources, no sign of real-world impact nor even assertions thereof other than a list of publications which have bought his articles. PROD tag added, but removed by User:VivianDarkbloom with only a link to the writer's website listing publications which have bought his articles as an edit summary. Calton | Talk 00:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Sefringle^Talk 00:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO ff m 13:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:N. - Rjd0060 17:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's nice to see a representative sample of deletion-happy users signing on to ratify a lie told by a malicious user. The link I cited in the deprod noted that the subject of the article has a book published by a major international publisher (Random House), that his articles are regularly included in major publisher compilations of the year's best travel writing, with links to the appropriate publishers to verify the information. Calton is a malicious troll who's embroiled in multiple acts of incivility (here,for example, he delivers an insulting rant against a fine editor who he falsely accused of vandalism, explaining that he was right because he's entitled to assume bad faith [1]). Note that the subject of this article has also won awards from the pertinent professional organization [2]. it may not be a Pulitzer prize, but it's a helluva lot more notable, by any rational standards, than winning "year's best blowjob" from a self-selected group of porn-obsessed bloggers, which confers Wikinotability on porno performers. VivianDarkbloom 22:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your particular obsession with porno articles, have a read of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS: perhaps you can vent your frustration in more appropriate venues, such as at the AFD discussions I'm sure you'll be initiating instead of someplace as completely irrelevant as here. The rest of your misdirection by ad hominem can probably be safely ignored.
So any arguments that actually apply to the actual article under discussion? And which actually apply to the actual points made? --Calton | Talk 23:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your nose keeps growing longer, Calton. Perhaps you could explain why you don't believe that the fact that Rolf Potts has won awards for his writing from the pertinent professional organization isn't relevant to the article. Face it, you're a failed writer who takes out his spite on more successful ones. Vent your frustration in more appropriate venues, like banging your head against your bathroom wall, rather than telling lies [3] about other users. You haven't made a positive contribution to Wikipedia in your last, what, seven thousand contributions, but you do enjoy beating up on adolescent female newbees who post about their enthusiasms. Get a life. VivianDarkbloom 19:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer, then, is "I got nothin'"? One "award" for "Best Internet Writing", from a minor trade organization? Surely you can do better than that?

No, strike that: all that flailing and venom tells me no, you can't. The various bits of your rant, though, add up to a revealingly textbook case of psychological projection in action. --Calton | Talk 23:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than spewing bile, you could read the citations I gave, but no, you resort to dishonest personal attacks. You are, after all, the guy who claims he has the right to accuse users of vandalism for deleting false reports that public figures have died, because you shouldn't have to was your time actually checking the facts, and the guy who insists he has the right to hurl racist insults at other users. Can't imagine why you have a problem with me cleaning up the slime created by dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical users like yourself, but hey, you haven't made a positive contribution to Wikipedia in godknowshowlong. VivianDarkbloom 22:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.