Talk:Clyde Lewis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

This article was nominated for deletion on May 31, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

The statement about the four horsemen is dubious at best. It is unencyclopedic in nature in that the four horsemen have no relevance to the rest of the article,the subject of the article, or society in general. Also the author does not reference a source, or name the "university", leaving a reader to question, "so what?"

[edit] Plagiarism of Goro Adachi

Clyde Lewis' plagiarism of Goro Adachi should be added to this wiki.

http://www.goroadachi.com/etemenanki/plagiarism.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.227.156.159 (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

The reversion I performed was not vandalism. It was cleanup.

These are the reasons for reversion:

1. The accusation is not formal, nor is it made through any official channels.

2. The accusation in question is the only suggestion known to me, or to Mr. Lewis, that he has plagiarized anyone, and I can find no sources on the internet of other accusations. Yet the wording in the edit implies that more than one person has claimed it. The implication of there being more than one accusation is not backed up by any references. Therefore this statement does not represent the truth as I know it to be or the truth as currently provable.

3. I do not see the text as furthering anyone's knowledge of the article's subject. If the accusation were long-standing, formal,and were to represent a notable portion of Lewis's life or career, it might be appropriate to include in an encyclopedic entry. As it stands, it is not. Even in articles which do mention an author's real or alleged reputation for plagiarism, specific examples are not normally cited unless they would be of interest to a reader seeking general information about the entry's subject.

4. The user included, in their edit, links to the site cited as having been plagiarized. This suggests that the edit was motivated by the user's desire to gain traffic for the site in question, instead of by the intent to make Wikipedia informative or relevant.

This dispute does not belong on Wikipedia. It is between the alleged plagiarizer and the alleging party. The accusation was made in the subject's webpage forum and on the accuser's website. It should stay there. These accusations are made of public figures every day. Retaliation is not a good enough reason to change an encyclopedic entry. Mordant Kitten 16:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for responding. Although it is apparent from the IPs, I am the author of the accusation on this talk page, but not the author of the changes to the wiki. That said, the changes happened after my terse accusation, so I should assume responsibility and hence respond to your post. I agree with the rationale behind making no mention of plagiarism in the wiki of Mr. Lewis. My only desire was to prompt a response on this talk page, in the hopes that one of his more ardent listeners would bring the quasi-public dissent to his attention. Perhaps Mr. Lewis might reconsider doing it again, if he learns of the plagiarism's acknowledgment via multiple vectors - one of which being a prominent online encyclopedia. With hindsight, I believe his wiki entry would have been changed whether or not I had accused him of plagiarism on this talk page. In closing, while he has already called for multidimensional speculation on why he has done so, I hope Mr. Lewis can refrain from future plagiarization; that applies to all people he may have wronged, as his actions suggest familiarity with the process. 66.227.156.159 23:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your own response. I had added a more objective description of the incident in hopes of putting an end to the repeated re-addition of the wiki change, but your concurrence with my reasons have caused me to decide that it is not necessary to cater to the changer.Mordant Kitten 00:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compliance with notability guidelines

Have commenced rewriting the entry. Mordant Kitten 03:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have posted a rewritten entry which I hope will satisfy guidelines. I still need to add some external links but I have removed the notice. Please advise if the article needs further reworking. Mordant Kitten 01:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if you work on that article, you would personally need to remove the PROD tag that was placed in the top of the article. If not, it will still be deleted. Even if the PROD process was stopped, people can still nominate it for deletion. (Note, I saw your email in OTRS, so that is why I am here). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kept

The motion to delete this article failed, but it can always be renominated, and Wikipedia aspires to articles that are of more than just passable quality. I encourage continued (and nearly continual) development of this article. —SlamDiego_←T 18:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)