Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yttrx
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 Delete, though if requested, we can userfy this to reevaluate after multiple independent reliable sources have been added to show notability, and all claims attributed. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 07:53Z
[edit] Yttrx
Article asserts some degree of notability, but doesn't provide reliable sources. A Google search only shows his blog, the interview referenced in the article, and participation in various online forums (mostly digg and usenet) Pekaje 20:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Note Pekaje is a denizen of one of the newsgroups in which Yttrx posts, comp.os.linux.advocacy, and has a long history of confrontational behavior with Yttrx. It's therefore very likely that this move for deletion was for purely personal reasons, though luckily the article itself does indeed fail some important Wiki tests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salomejones (talk • contribs) 16:30, February 28, 2007
- Clarification Yes, I am part of that newsgroup, and yes it is how I noticed this page. However, I would appreciate if you would not outright lie that I have a long history of confrontational behavior with Yttrx. A simple Google groups search will show that I have more or less completely ignored him throughout the time we have both been posting to that Usenet group. I could find a total of 4 posts where I reply to him, 2 about this wiki page, 1 informing him that he was arguing with a known troll, and finally one from last year where I made clear that I considered his behavior to be rather rude. Just because you can't make a case for keeping the page, doesn't mean you have to attack me. Pekaje 15:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Apparently fails WP:BIO: he's only been the subject of one listed independent source. --Gwern (contribs) 21:35 25 February 2007 (GMT) 21:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:BIO: no possible verification of sources, or information. --Bigwig2222
- Delete [1] Alexa Rankings seem to indicate it also fails WP:WEB. Willie Stark 23:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I'm the original author, and haven't had time to update this article with more firm links. Also, the subject of the article has repeatedly informed me that he does not want certain facts and works linked to this article, so we're in a bit of a conundrum. If it does get removed, I'll forumalate something that will hopefully quell all doubts on every side, and also fill the original purpose of the original article, without going against anyone's wishes.sjones 15:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. SakotGrimshine 20:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete just a bunch of made up claims. Cchamilton2 21:53 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Note Cchamilton2 has been vandalizing the page in question repeatedly, so is probably not objective -- Pekaje 23:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Note If anyone can verify the items under Trivia, or half of the claims under Origins, then please do. Nothing I added was any less verifiable than what was already there. Cchamilton2 01:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Note In order to verify at least one item in Trivia, the identity of the person behind the pseudonym would have to be revealed in this article. Since he's made it very clear that he does not want this article, or any wiki article containing the nom de plume "yttrx" to be linked with any existing reference or work of or created by the person behind the pseudonym, it's not going to happen in this particular permutation of this page. However, if this page does get deleted, it will likely show up in a new permutation, which again, would be engineered not only to the satisfaction of everyone involved, but also for the point of the purpose of the original yttrx entry. And, why Cchamilton2 is still an active wiki account even after evident and admitted wikipedia vandalism is utterly beyond me. Also Cchamilton2, if you need citations then use "citation needed" like everyone else--instead of vandalizing the page. In some of the instances in this wiki entry, there are people who would come forward and supply them as needed. sjones 05:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Note It's not vandalism if it's the truth. I'd happily change it back and add citations myself, but it's better it's deleted since I can only add citations for so much. The purpose of the original yttrx entry was vanity, so I think you'll have to find another purpose if it is going to stay around next time. As for why my account is still active, well I could ask you the same thing. Cchamilton2 11:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Note Cchamilton2 has been vandalizing the page in question repeatedly, so is probably not objective -- Pekaje 23:02, 26 February 2007 (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.
