Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Nick Tullos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 03:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Nick Tullos

Vanity page for a Louisiana Tech grad student who's started a business. Delete. Calton | Talk 01:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Benefit of doubt: Keep: The person has some history of contribution to the community via running competitions for students and explaining things on the DIY Network. I originally was going to call for deletion, but after searching I decided to give it the benefit of doubt and wikify the page and neutralize the point of view. What I wonder is that if his wife wrote the article, she supposedly has a Masters degree in technical writing and a Bachelors in English. Hu 01:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Not one of those things you mention, no matter how many wikilinks you add, comes close to satisfying WP:BIO. And how do you know about his wife? --Calton | Talk 03:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Nobody is claiming wiki links is the reason. As to the other question, I did a quick search and this was one of the first links to show up: [1] which surprised me given the lack of quality of writing, but who knows who wrote the article. I don't have much interest either way, other than idle curiosity. Hu 07:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Nobody is claiming wiki links is the reason. Nor did I say that: I'm referring to the use of wikilinks to, as the old saying goes, "put lipstick on a pig". --Calton | Talk 01:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy A7. NSLE (讨论+extra) 04:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep also 1. Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more 2.Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events. His competition is always in the news show and papers. (unsigned comment by 208.180.144.30 05:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Hu; especially since the changes. It's at least worth allowing it to develop for awhile.Peyna 05:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Withdrawing my vote due to the issue I mention below. Peyna 15:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not sufficiently notable to get his own page. Competitions for students are a dime a dozen. Maybe in a few years, he should get his own page (if his companies take off or if he gets his own show, etc), but not right now. Janet13 06:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Resurect when becomes really notable Renata3 06:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep he meets the qualifications shown above - google search validates - lots of media from robots and business 1google 1google 2google 3google 4Keep it or stub it. (unsigned comment by 208.180.194.86 02:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Looking for "Nick Tullos" + robotics gives only 31 hits. Some of the other searches are too generic (for example, video conference recorder). Janet13 08:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Google nick tullos or nicholas tullos 1
      • Yeah but. That returns 89 hits. I get 13,300 myself over here and I betcha never heard of me. Mark K. Bilbo 21:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Everything combined makes him notable enough. Superm401 | Talk 08:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete as Renata says it can always be resurrected. I don't see much room for expansion in the sort term. Dlyons493 Talk 09:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment it's hard to tell from the history, but 68.185.236.166, who is also the creator of Nick Tullos changed 208.180.144.30's vote to Keep and changed some other things regarding that user's comments. Either the page creator is trying to change votes, or they are one and the same and therefore the vote should have negligible weight. Peyna 15:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - it's a fine call, could go either way, but the activities of apparent sockpuppets make me think this is really vanity. Yes, I am shallow. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - the presence of socks is usually a dead giveaway that the subject is not notable enough. Capitalistroadster 18:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sounds like a great guy, but since the companies and publications listed aren't notable, none of the claims in the article are notable. --A D Monroe III 19:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable enough for an encyclopedia. Sockpuppets indicate vanity Bwithh 20:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn and probably vanity. Mark K. Bilbo 21:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Seems to be swinging to "Delete", which I don't have much problem with. I note with amusement though, that every page about some minor fictional character in any obscure video game made that appeals to 12 year olds is kept while a technologist, organizer and presenter is deleted. C'est la vie :) Hu 23:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    • If enough people are willing to support the endeavor, I'll go find them and start putting them up for deletion. It just seemed like it would be a very uphill battle. Also, technologist, organizer, and presenter is a set of terms that could be used to describe tens of thousands of people (for example, many graduate students, professors, postdocs, etc) :) Janet13 00:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Hu, I share your apparent puzzlement. If Janet13 wants to start nominating gamecruft, I will be right in there voting delete. As far as I'm concerned the encyclopaedic content of most of these games is that they are a game played on $console, released in $year and selling $sales copies. Ditto most fiction articles. But I am well aware that this is against if not consensus then at least trend, which appears to be creeping trivialism. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - not quite notable enough. Perhaps when Tullos achieves more prominence his article will be restored but until then it's delete. Oh, and Hu, I share your pain. Reyk 23:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, should have been speedied. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for changing votes if nothing else. It's non-noteable and vanity anyway. HackJandy 06:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't think that the presence of sock puppets should make any difference to your voting habits. After all, are you likely to vote keep or delete just because everyone else has? If he used sock puppets, then correct the problems. People who voted delete purely because someone who had voted keep had used sock puppets is childish. The page should be judged on its own merits. And who is to say that the guy created his own page? Zordrac 09:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I don't see anything to make him hotable enough. -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nominator. MCB 07:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
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.
Retrieved from "http://debianws.lexgopc.com/wiki143/index.php?title=Wiki143:Articles_for_deletion/Nick_Tullos&oldid=2211674"