Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bikerfox (2nd nomination)

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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bikerfox

Bikerfox (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non notable self-styled internet celebrity. Most of this article has been written by the subject themselves and has an incredible bias. Article was previously nominated for deletion, and the result was "Keep and rewrite". The article was again rewritten by the person in question, completely defeating the purpose of the original nomination. Article either needs to be deleted or (if decision is keep), completely rewritten without any involvement by the person in question. Save-Me-Oprah^(talk) 07:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per the article failing any of our core policies: WP:NPOV, WP:A, WP:COI, WP:AUTO, etc. If the subject himself feels the need to constantly advertise his own notability, then it suggests he has none. His one claim to notability, the "front flip" appears to have also been proven untrue by a number of editors. Any other attempts to make the article less one-sided appear to have also been removed by the subject. It's also the only article I've ever seen with a ridiculous "registered" after the subject's name and four different "problem" templates. Some of the actions of the subject in keeping the article as he likes, as detailed at the Conflict of interest report, are similarly unacceptable. Bob talk 10:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Excluding the subject's own COI edits, the article has seen only minor contributions. I usually would have preferred to recommend the alternative option of issuing a partial ban on the offending editor and reverting his contributions – however, as has been mentioned, hardly anything would remain of the article, and I personally find it unlikely to be rewritten by an uninvolved party any time soon. CounterFX (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  Suggestion: If the outcome is delete, maybe the article content should be copied/moved to the subject's user space at User:Bikerfox. There, it could be worked upon, by the subject himself or by any other interested editor, to rectify the policy violations discussed in this AfD, including: establishing the subject's notability through independent third-party publications, and eliminating the POV and autobiographical bias from the present article. Should it someday meet Wikipedia standards, it could then be moved back to the main namespace; otherwise, it could remain as a user page or subpage indefinitely, without compromising the quality of Wikipedia articles. CounterFX (talk) 03:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

  I wouldn't do that. This user is not here to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia but rather to vanispamcruftise. Let's not give him the recognition of having a Wikipedia page until he discovers the mission of Wikipedia. Pages like this serve as an attractive nuisance for even more crap. MER-C 06:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

  I primarily wanted to avoid the situation where we discard the content of an article (which had been considered to pass WP:N in the former AfD) simply on grounds of its subject's contentious behaviour, but you have a point. CounterFX (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Amazingly, the article seems to have gotten worse since the prior AFD. This suggests both that it could be better and that something is keeping it from getting better, a sure sign of tendentious editing. --Dhartung | Talk 03:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Simply calling oneself an "Internet celebrity" is not quite enough to claim that ephemeral mantle. Reliable sources are obviously lacking; the only "sourcing" provided are a few docket records that should be available for anyone who has ever been in court. As a side note, even given the article's brevity, it is still an incomprehensible mess. Did the subject legally change his name in 2005? If so, then why does the article use the words, "in August 2007, DeLarzelere"? How could there still be a DeLarzelere by that date if his name had changed? And why do the court records from 2007 give "DeLarzelere" as his real name and "Biker Fox" as an alias--wouldn't a legal name change result in it being the other way around? Is the information in the article claiming a legal name change accurate? Heather (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - pure vanispamcruftisement. The sources provided are forums and (likely) unlicensed copies of copyrighted content and thus shouldn't be there. MER-C 06:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Most of the edits on this page can easily be traced back to Tulsa, which is where the person the article is written about resides. All but one of the 'references' on the page link to the DeLarzelere's own website. Six of the eight links in the Newspapers and Magazines section link to forum posts. Six of six links in the references section link to Delarzelere's own websites, or blogs. Out of the last 50 edits on this page, 30 of them are registered to a Tulsa, OK IP address. The last eight consecutive edits came from this same IP address. andrew240 (talk)

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.