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 of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Perkel[edit]

This was put up for speedy deletion A7. Unfortunately, A7 only applies when there is no claim of significance, and this article does make that claim. I therefore bring it to AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality for background --RoySmith 20:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination withdrawn. New information in this article points out that Perkel was the Democratic nominee for the 7th Congressional District in Missouri in 1998, a fact which I was previously unaware of. I argued on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Brown that being a candidate for congress for a major party (even if you lost) makes you worthy of a Wikipedia article, and surely the same logic applies here. --RoySmith 21:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe you should do a little research before you start attacking articles by making blind assertion about things you know absolutely nothing about. Perhaps if you had taken the time to Google my name you would have seen that there was no reason for you to intrude on this work. That's why I think this process sucks because people who know nothing make blins assertions as if they are true without putting out any effort to check the facts.--Marcperkel 21:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, no need to be so nasty, Roy just graciously admitted he was wrong, now its your turn to graciously accept. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It wasn't RoySmith that tagged the article for speedy deletion. Uncle G 19:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn- and IMHO qualifies for Speedy, see discussion at Interpretation_of_WP:CSD_A7. "Some editors are insisting that a claim of notability must be substantiated and verified to count under A7." I support this position. Claiming notability is not enough. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC) Now qualifies for speedy keep, does it not? But needs sources in External links, such as the one listed above by RoySmith. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it doesn't qualify for a speedy keep. The nominator has withdrawn his nomination, but there are numerous valid "delete" votes, which we cannot just ignore. Feel free to restore your "delete" vote if you actually believe this page should not be kept. — Haeleth Talk 21:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case, Delete per previous reasons and Splash. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - For what it's worth I didn't start this page. But RoySmith deletes everything I post and everything anyone posts about me. So since Ed Poor started this page I decided to post some information to make it interesting.Voters might want to reconsider now that it has been changed from the original article that had only one sentence.--Marcperkel 21:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  It would help if there were some cites and verifiability not based exclusively on your site(s). KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  You might want to try clicking on the links to get verification.--Marcperkel 21:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (I was going to say delete) but this is absolutely classic! ROFL. Well done Mr Edmund Ward Poor III for sniffing this one out! — Dunc|☺ 21:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  While you're at it you might want to revisit the assertion that the Church of Reality has only one member. This is the kind of thing that makes new authors a little angry. --Marcperkel 21:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Abuse of process should not be encouraged. --Nlu (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't get what's interesting about this person beyond his existence. Standing and losing in an election isn't any claim to any fame, and founding a so-called church a few years ago whose article has already been deleted doesn't help either. Then there's the absurd behaviour of the subject that suggests the desire to retain this page stems from pretty hard-core vanity. All of the attempts at claiming fame in the article are notable only by being non-special, or presumably over-inflated. I don't see any verification, for example, that this person was responsible for the voting down of tax measures, merely that he campaigned about it a bit. I don't see why this article was created in the first place; it can't have been accidental on Ed Poor's part. -Splash^talk 19:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, autobiography, self-promotion, advertising Dpbsmith (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Splash.--Sean|Black 21:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I also see nothing that establishes why we need an article on the guy, and it is clearly just another measure to have Wikipedia include some information about his "religion". If the article is kept, anything more than a minimal metion about the "religion", unless it clearly states it is a made up, uncommon one would be a violation of NPOV. - Taxman ^Talk 22:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Sure looks like vanity to me. When people try to make themselves sound "notable" for several different unrelated activities, it's often a sign of puffery. Friday (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Splash. Nandesuka 00:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sean Black. Stifle 14:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I cannot understand why this article was created.

1. Even if he is notable, he's not very notable. So adding his bio only adds a tiny amount to Wikipedia's value as a reference tool.
2. Keeping this article means that it will have to be NPOV.
3. This will likely enrage the subject, causing him to resume his spamming and vandalism.
4. This will force the diversion of resources to preventing that -- resources that could be be spent creating and improving useful articles.
5. Therefore, retaining this article is likely to result in a net loss to Wikipedia's value as a research tool. And that's the bottom line, I think.

Yes the diversion of resources and general headache is bearable, but why? Who needs it?. I just made this identical comment on the AfD for Erik Beckjord (who is urging his forum readers to vandalize Wikipedia). It adds up, and how, exactly, does this help to build an encylopedia? Wikipedia is not a suicide pact. Herostratus 16:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No claim of notability: losing candidates in elections are not notable in and of themselves, and this guy does not seem to have gained any notoriety as a result of his failure to win. And inventing religions only makes you notable if they actually catch on. — Haeleth Talk 21:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I am surprised that there wouldn't be am entry for Mr. Perkel. I was even more surprised to discover that there was no entry for the Church Of Reality. I religious discussions I've been in lately, the CoR always comes up as part of the discussion. I got to this deletion page after a failed attmpet to get more information on the Church of Reality. It is the most common sense 'religion' I've ever come across, and deserves a place in the Wikipedia world. Norbo 20:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This being Norbo's first edit on Wikipedia, I'd like to welcome him to the party. -Splash^talk 20:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Splash, that's a nice gesture, but a shallow one, since you didn't leave a ((welcome)) message on Norbo's talk page. I have remedied your (inadvertent, I'm sure) omission :-) --RoySmith 20:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well thank you. How kind of you. Lovely. -Splash^talk 23:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Editors are advised not to violate WP:TOE. Herostratus
• Delete as vanity. He runs a business and a few websites; the guides that the article states he published were published on his website, never in print; he appreared in a chat show once, and running for Congress or being the first sysadmin for the EFF hasn't gained him any notoriety. I mean, if it had this vanity article would have said so. Pilatus 22:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Not in print? Hmmmm .... Click here for today's artcle in the news. I've been in print hundreds of times. But - I guess anyone can make up anything they want. --Marcperkel 22:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So who has published your guides? That's what Pilatus said (that your published guides were only "published" on your website), not that your name has never appeared in print. But I guess anyone can ignore someone's point when it suits them. --TheMidnighters 06:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• You guys who hate me are missing the point - Instead of claiming the article isn't notable, you're missing the opportunity to dig up dirt on me. There's a ton of public information out there where you can post real dirt. I din't start this article - I just added to it. It doesn't even cover my arrest record. The stuff posted is a fraction of what's out there. The more you dig the more interesting it gets. --Marcperkel 23:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're not notable enough to hate or to dig up dirt on. --Nlu (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable enough as shown by the discussion here. -- JJay 17:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's ridiculous. Suggesting someone becomes notable by having lots of people say he is non-notable on a process page in the depths of Wikipedia is simply wrong. -Splash^talk 17:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comment. The nom- now withdrawn- abuse of AfD and singling out users by name are also wrong. -- JJay 17:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• From what Marcperkel is saying here, it seems clear to me that this is a vanity thing for him. Use your own personal website for self-promotion; it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  The real issue is notability. -- JJay 17:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine explicitly excludes self-promotion. -Splash^talk 17:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm very familiar with the rules here. Thank you. -- JJay 18:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I know about Church of Reality and Marc Perkel and find both the church and the person informational. Some might not consider information notable, but I think you may as well use the term 'not notable' with 'not important' and both terms are difficult to objectively judge. Not notable according to what criteria? Not important in who's opinion? Thane Eichenauer 04:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Autobiography, self-promotion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:32, 13 December 2005 (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.