Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyle Zapato

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep JoshuaZ (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lyle Zapato

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

This aricle has no reliable sources except the the Oregonian interview on his views on Cascadia. If he weren't notable, his views wouldn't be notable. Most of the sources are his own web site. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Epbr123 (talk) 10:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • KEEP! Au contraire, mes amis. Lyle Zapato is actually quite notable. He's quoted on the following sites in addition to the Oregonian article:
  • Absolute Write which publishes articles about writing and interviews with authors, screenwriters etc. This was linked in the article.
  • Bruce Eisner's Vision Thing Bruce Eisner is a writer and a poet, he was particularly impressed with Lyle Zapato's [www.cafepress.com/dactylfractal/ Dactyl Fractal] which Mr. Eisner calls "Hands Within Hands Within Hands -- Lyle Zapato’s Dactyl Fractal Zoom." Mr. Zapato's dactyl fractal art was also noted at various art websites, including Tree of the Day
  • Lyle's pioneering work on Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanies and protection from mental infiltration by the computer program known as "Mindguard," was featured on the website of prominent skeptic James Randi:
“ I've been sent this hilarious spoof — http://zapatopi.net/mindguard.html — from which I give you an example of the delicious pseudoscientific language they have invented:

MindGuard works by leveraging your computer's aluminum-based innards to both detect and emit psychotronic energy using advanced quasi-quantum techniques. Once a mind-control signal is identified and analyzed, MindGuard can generate a specially tuned anti-signal that will jam the incoming signal. If MindGuard is unable to properly identify the signal, it will generate psychotronic white noise to ensure the signal's harmful message is scrambled.

MindGuard is fully configurable and can be customized for the individual user using biorhythmic and eponymologic settings. MindGuard also includes an advanced DePsych utility, allowing the removal of almost all deep-burned memetic patterns — including even commercial jingles.

With MindGuard, you can rest assured that your most valuable possession — your mind — is safe from the nefarious tinkering of evil-doers.

Yep, I'll just bet that if you use this device, not a single shred of mind-control signal will get through to you! And those deep-burned memetic patterns will just be gone, gone, gone! I don't know who got this clever hoax together, but it's obviously someone who is familiar with the kind of nonsense that Lewis Carroll so well expressed when he wrote of borogoves, mome raths, and slithy toves….

 ”
Mtsmallwood (talk) 05:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
There's many other references but I don't have enough time to go into them now.Mtsmallwood (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete There is more information and citation in the debate than the actual article. I think it is telling that the article admits the book only gained "some attention". OneHappyHusky (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
There are at least two articles in Wikipedia that link to Lyle Zapato's website, including Tin-foil hat and Pacific Northwest tree octopus If Tin-Foil Hat and Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus are still on, why not an article describing Lyle Zapato, a real person? Google "tree octopus." You get 21,400 hits. Google "aluminum foil." The first hit is right here on Wikipedia: Aluminium foil. The second site is Lyle Zapato's Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie. Or try googling "Sasquatch Militia." You get 33,000 hits, the first of course is Lyle's Bureau of Sasquatch Affairs. There's many other examples. So if there's an issue with the wording of the article, please improve, feel free, but deletion on notability grounds, no way, the case just isn't there. Mtsmallwood (talk) 07:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • i also recommend DELETE this article is barly notable. just becuase someone has a website doest mean that their notable. i used to think that was the case sbut if you read the discusions on the criticms of sylvia browne talk page, the kevin trudeau talk page, and the uri gelelr talk page you will se the reasons for this explained in tdetail thats ite asy to understand. it helps to read hte policies so that you dont make mistakes like thinkign in that way. Smith Jones (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep We kept the tree octopus article, plus the Lyle Zapato has written a book that is for sale on Amazon. Paul Studier (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, but rewrite. The article needs to make a better case for notability, including information and references included in this discussion. It should also be written in a tone, style and format more appropriate to Wikipedia. Delete. Article doesn't make case for notability, and is written in POV manner.--Skylights76 (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Here's a case for notability, inklingmagazine.com:
“ Late last year, University of Connecticut professor Donald Leu asked 25 Connecticut seventh graders to evaluate a website on the endangered Pacific Northwest tree octopus (Octopus paxarbolis) as part of an online literacy survey. What he learned may shock you.

According to what little scientists know about it, the Pacific Northwest tree octopus is an amphibious species restricted to the temperate rainforests of the North American Pacific coast. The arboreal creatures abandon their coniferous homes each spring and migrate to the waters of Puget Sound to spawn. Sadly, years of logging, urban growth, overharvesting during the nineteenth century for hat accessories and depredation by its natural predator, the sasquatch, has driven this species to critically low levels.

Of the 25 seventh-graders identified as their schools’ best online readers, 24 recommended this bogus website to another class that Leu had told them was also researching endangered species. In other words, they bought the tentacled tree-hugger hook, line and sinker – fooled by the scientific-sounding text, the photos and the e-mail address, Leu said. Even after they were let in on the hoax, most of the students had difficulty deciphering the clues that betrayed the site’s fictitiousness. Some still maintained that the octopus really exists.

The survey is part of a U.S. Department of Education-funded research ...

 ”
And here's a serious effort showing use of the site as teaching tool: New Literacies for New Times: Preparing our Students for the 21st Century:
“ STEP 7: Teach the Online Comprehension Skills of Locating Information and Critical Evaluation Critical Evaluation: Use sites such as Save the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus (http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/ ) ”
So far, nobody has done anything but recommend the death penalty for this article instead of chipping in and improving it. POV problems, notability, that can all be addressed, but just hacking away at something, especially when wikipedia already has articles on the Tree Octopus, etc., just ain't right.Mtsmallwood (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree, and have changed my vote above. But I'll leave the improvements to those people wanting to keep the article. Improve it now, and the outcome of this discussion is more likely to be "Keep."--Skylights76 (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I added a lot of stuff on notability to the article, it's still rough, but a lot of issues have been addressed, I think. Mtsmallwood (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Some others did some major editing after your edits, and now it's looking a lot better.--Skylights76 (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
looks good, but why is the picture of D.B. Cooper missing? Sure looks a lot like Lyle Zapato to me. Mtsmallwood (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
You're joking, right? You can't use a picture just because it looks like a person.--Skylights76 (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Certainly I wouldn't advocate that as a general proposition. This may be a special case however. There's the unusual coincidence that the sketches of D.B. Cooper and Lyle Zapato look a lot alike, except that D.B. Cooper in 1971 looks iike a 20 years older version of Lyle Zapato. This leaves two possibilities:
(1) either Lyle is hoaxing us (again, some might say) and he doesn't look at all like D.B. Cooper or
(2) Lyle Zapato and D.B. Cooper are actually the same person who is one of the small class of persons who are living backwards, that is growing younger in appearance as they grow older, like Jonathan Winters in Mork and Mindy or Merlin in the Once and Future King.
While this second possibility might be objected to on the grounds that only fictional characters have ever been known to live backwards, and Lyle Zapato appears to be actual and not fictional, the simple fact remains that no one has ever seen Lyle Zapato and D.B. Cooper in the same place at the same time. So I think the picture should stay and Wikireaders can make up their own minds as to which possibility is the most likely scenario. Mtsmallwood (talk) 03:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I had to look up D.B. Cooper and then the link you provided in an earlier edit of the Zapato page to know what you were even talking about. Obviously it's another of Zapato's gags. I still don't think it's appropriate for the article.--Skylights76 (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, meant to provide the
D.B.Cooper
D.B.Cooper
image and Lyle's alleged sketch as links, the comparison becomes easier with them. Mtsmallwood (talk) 07:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as utterly non-notable rubbish. JERRY talk contribs 22:54, 17 January 2008 (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.