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 - no sources, and no evidence of notability. Allow for re-creation when and if such evidence arises. Bearian (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Hodges[edit]

Ben Hodges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Doesn't seem notable enough, also quite POV. StaticGull  Talk  16:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a reply posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 juni 26 in regards this article, please help to move it here. The creator of this article is new to wikipedia. They have been shown the wikipedia autobiography page, as well as requested to reply here on this page. Is there any other advice they can be offered in this regards? Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 02:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Whom It May Concern: I posted the Ben Hodges entry (it's me; I have edited and published over 13 publications, including the most important pictorial and statistical record of the American theatre, "Theatre World.") My publications are in over 15 colleges and universities, and I am the most prolific anthologist of gay and lesbian plays ever published. In addition, I have won and/or been nominated for major national awards for my work. In addition, all information posted is accurate and verifiable. What's the problem?
Ben
  • The problem is that because Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view people are strongly discouraged from writing about themselves, which inevitably involves a conflict of interest - see the guideline on autobiography. The advice is "You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved" and (to put it brutally) if no-one independent of you is interested enough to write an article about you, perhaps you are not notable enough for an article. Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion. JohnCD (talk) 07:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask Static Gull firstly: what, exactly, is POV about the article? Secondly, why was Static Gull's activity limited by Wikipedia on June 23? and finally, how, exactly, is having published more anthologies (complete with commentary and introductions) on a genre than any person living or dead (Gay and Lesbian Theatre), combined with editing the definitive reference on commercial theatre production, in addition to having served as editor in chief of the most complete annual pictorial and statistical record of the American theatre for 7 years– with an accompanying study by students in scores of colleges and universities, totaling 13 published works, NOT qualify as notable? Benhodges (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2008
To answer your first question, words like "prestigious" make the article POV, but most importantly, WP:COI does. If by your second question you're refferring to the use of ((User:StaticGull/Break)) on my user- and talk page, my activity wasn't limited by, but on Wikipedia. As for your last question, WP:SOAP has a better answer than I do. StaticGull  Talk  09:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK– Ben again here....So, just so I understand it clearly...the problem mainly with my entry is that someone else didn't submit it? Clearly someone else could have, and secondly, your whole POV argument rests on the word "prestigious"? A 64 year old ceremony that is the oldest award for Broadway and Off-Broadway debuts, which began with persons such as Barbara Bel Geddes and Burt Lancaster being awarded, and just 25 days ago had Alec Baldwin and Laura Linney, Carol Lawrence, and Andrea Martin, and Lin-Manuel Miranda and Ben Daniels, amon others, winning, doesn't count as prestigious? IS THERE AS VOICE OF REASON OUT THERE WHO CAN JUDGE THIS OBJECTIVELY??!?!?!? THIS IS GETTING RIDICULOUS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.69.115 (talk) 02:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I posted (Ben again here), the entries for Frederic B. Vogel, Theatre World, and John A. Willis, on the same day, all of which apparently sneaked by without event. Apparently, since Fred's dead, and John is 92 and therefore I posted his bio for him, combined with the fact that Theatre World is an inanimate object, make them all qualify for an entry, whereas, as a living, breathing, person, who submitted my own entry, albeit completely accurate and fact checked, is disqualified. I have to tell you as an editor of a worldwide publication, with 13 books to my credit in over 20 colleges and universities, and as a current mid-career intellectual property law student, I would be very, very, very, suspicious of the credibility of a website if my comments here with respect to it are accurate. Done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.69.115 (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.
More