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 all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Higgs

[edit]

This summarizes an issue originally raised at the COI noticeboard

I discovered this article when putting a speedydelete tag on a slapdash spam article for Mr Higgs's book (The Guide To Selling Your Music In The iTunes Music Store (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)). ([EDIT:] Article is currently being brought before DRV by its author.) I found that the only editor of note for that article was also the only editor of note for this article on Mr Higgs; an article for a Michelle Higgs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), whom I presume is a relative and whose music has been produced by Mr Higgs; the only editor for Healing Rooms, an album by Michelle Higgs and produced by Mr Higgs; and the main editor for articles on a David Ruis and a Boris Menart, also Higgs-produced musicians. The editor also claims suspiciously to be the copyright holder of Image:Healing-rooms-cover.jpg.

The editor, Particle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), became extremely evasive when asked if he had a conflict of interest on the book's talk page (~~now deleted~~ here: Talk:The Guide To Selling Your Music In The iTunes Music Store), Michelle Higgs's talk page (~~also~~ now deleted), and his own userpage (which, though not lengthy at all, has been suspiciously archived by a bot, possibly so as to conceal the conflict of interest). Also note that, after this rigamarole, the user immediately blanked his userpage, which had previously linked to the Simon Higgs article with the redirect "Higgs' Law" [sic], and transcluded a UBX for WikiProject Contemporary Christian music, essentially scrambling to don a halo. User has also removed my spam tag from the Simon Higgs article while keeping in links intended to sell Mr Higgs's products.

User Particle is aware of my general opinion of his articles and of my intentions, as it was my "depredations against the innocent," or some such nonsense, that brought down (via speedydelete) the articles on his book and his (presumed) wife. I should also mention the categories he's created for himself and his wife ("Books [sic] by..." "Albums [sic] by," etc.), as well as his various redirects, apparent self-entries on lists (the "Higgs' Laws" entry on Scientific phenomena named after people is particularly galling), and other vain weirdnesses.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also Particle creations on musicians closely associated with Mr Higgs, which thus abysmally fail WP:COI and should be considered spam:

--Dynaflow 18:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. The last three articles just mentioned are easily dismissed for lack of assertion of notability, and might even qualify for speedy deletion. The first one, Simon Higgs, is more substantial and makes some claims to notability, but completely lacks third-party sources to justify such terms as Higgs' Law, or attesting to the importance of Higgs's work. The author of all these articles, User:Particle, may have a COI and be the publisher of the records, since when uploading the image for Healing Rooms he asserted he was the copyright owner of the cover picture of the record. EdJohnston 19:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N, in trying to find sources myself, google gives a lot of hits (though not all to the same Simon Higgs) but nothing I can find that suggests notability. That said I would not be suprised if some decent secondary source exists out there, and would consider changing to keep if proper sources were provided (though article would need a lot of cleanup. Additional Comment Category:Books_by_Simon_Higgs should probably be included in this AFD as well, though can certainly just be speedied. Russeasby 19:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all No evidence of notability. Just as a point of pedantry the apostrophe use on "Higgs' Law" is correct, it can be either Higgs' or Higgs's. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's much more fun to be persnickety, though. In any case, the [sic] is technically used to show simply that you are repeating what another has said, verbatim. Though there is often a tone of mild condescension attached to its use, it doesn't necessarily mean that the usage it follows is wrong, per se. I used it to show that I was using my preferred "s's" form alongside Particle's preferred "s'" form, and not just switching indiscriminately between them ... 'cause I's a grammar nazi like dat. Ah, how refreshing. I seem to have gotten through my day's quota of pedantry in one go! =) --Dynaflow 19:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as there is no reason to think a source will be forthcoming, as the article has been here unsourced since 2004. Why did it take such a long time to discover? Perhaps because he was so unnotable nobody even looked at it?. There's no point editing the article and removing links unless such sources miraculously appear.DGG 04:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, unsourced COI. Deiz talk 02:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. If Simon Higgs and his laws were as notable as Peter Higgs, the Higgs mechanism and the Higgs boson, I'd reconsider. — Athaenara 05:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leave alone. Or at least tidy up. What exactly are you all looking for? If anyone could be bothered to actually FACT CHECK, the notability of Simon Higgs was originally questioned by Hephaestos and that noticed was later removed by Hephaestos once DUE DILIGENCE had been done back on February 4, 2004. The secondary source at the time was Milton L. Mueller's book Ruling the Root: Internet Governance and the Taming of Cyberspace published by MIT Press (listed in the article). The other articles are people and credits that can easily be verified with a quick Google. particle 18:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Simon Higgs or are you closely associated with him in some way? [EDIT:] I would like to get Hephaestos' take on this, but he seems to have left Wikipedia [1] after getting into a rather messy fight with a robot [2]. --Dynaflow 19:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is that after checking the facts, Hephaestos was right. Yes, I know who Simon Higgs is. This isn't significant. All the legitimate COI critiques made have been addressed and will continue to be addressed. If others want to update these pages, they can do that. This has all the appearance of a personal vendetta against Simon Higgs because every single deletion notice has come from the same person - Dynaflow. Not only that but you have decided singly-handed to delete informational stubs (which by definition are works in progress) on the sole grounds they were created by this account and are therefore spam. How ludicrous is that? Please explain yourself. particle 21:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem here is WP:NOTE. The conflict of interest problem on one article is what made me suspicious that other articles were being created by the same account that don't satisfy WP:NOTE due to the same conflict of interest. I turned out to be right, and so here we are at AfD. Also, I 'single-handedly deleted' nothing. I do not have the power to delete, only to put up for deletion review. Even speedydelete tags must be reviewed (the actual deletions of the redlinked articles above were carried out by sysop Enochlau). Now, to clarify the WP:COI issue, are you Simon Higgs or a close associate/relative/publisher/etc. of his? --Dynaflow 21:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You already have your answer above. It does not justify removing verifiable facts. How do we know that you don't have a COI in that you are a rival or competitor of Simon Higgs? After all, you're the only one placing "delete" notices on the pages here. Getting back to the facts. The information has been UNCONTESTED for 4 years since it was originally challenged by Hephaestos. There is no problem with WP:NOTE because notability has already been contested and the issue was resolved back in 2004. The Higgs' Laws originally had their own page and the Wikipedia community decided they didn't merit their own page, so they were added to Simon Higgs' page (by someone else). Again, problem resolved. Now you come along with a very specific agenda to target EVERYTHING that has been made by this account. While other Wiki users seem to want to contribute to the pages this account has created, you seem to want to delete them and remove them from Wiki history so apparently you have an agenda at work here. Choose wisely. Your actions are not that of someone challenging information and sources per the Wikipedia mandate and these actions are not going unnoticed. particle 00:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a student with no interest in the genre of music in question, nor with the workings of the music industry in general. I am more than willing to reveal my identity to a third-party admin to verify this if needs be. My interests lie in keeping Wikipedia free of vanity autobiographical articles (WP:AUTO), vandalism (WP:VAND), and spam (WP:SPAM). Now -- who are you? --Dynaflow 00:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well considering none of those three items apply here I suggest we all go our separate ways and you remove the vandalism that you have attached to these pages. particle 03:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

time does not make poor decisions right. WP has tolerated many things accepted at the start which are only now being improved.DGG 03:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How long have you been the official spokesperson for Wikipedia? Wikipedia is made up of people. People have agendas, hold grudges and make personal attacks. Wikipedia is actually crumbling apart because of it. Vandalism of pages is a huge no-no here but you are apparently condoning it on these pages. Censorship and the removal of knowledge is never, ever, an improvement. Careful editing and fact-checking is. Remember, the whole world is watching. particle 07:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This whole deletion thread is apparently initiated by the mis-tagging of a book entitled The Guide To Selling Your Music In The iTunes Music Store. It was incorrectly tagged for speedy deletion and here's why - Wikipedia lists the following criteria for speedy deletion to include, but are not limited to, the following:

Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising related subject)

However, the book in question is specifically about sales and advertising. By definition it has relevant content related to sales and advertising and is not considered spam according to Wikipedia's own guidelines. particle 15:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Simon Higgs or a close associate/relative/publisher/etc., of his? --Dynaflow 18:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Simon Higgs as an author who's work has been reviewed numerous times ([3][4][5]). No current opinion on the rest. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, his book has been reviewed and written about but I haven't seen anything written about the man. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Complete lack of due diligence here. Simon Higgs is documented in Ruling the Root: Internet Governance and the Taming of Cyberspace published by MIT Press. An internet pioneer as well as music producer. Look it up. particle 00:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, book reviews do not establish notability for the author, and they don't solve the COI issues raised. --Coredesat 21:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- COI issues are not a reason for deletion, and book reviews can, actually, establish notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP As an owner of this author's book, it seems to me that the controversy raised here must have been from a competitor. Mr. Higgs' information online can be found on Google [6] and other search engines dating back some 10 years. I also confirmed via the ICANN website[7] that he has contributed work there as well. Skullkrax 01:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC) — Skullkrax (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment this user has only made two edits, this one and a comment on the talk page of this article up for AFD. Russeasby 01:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meatpuppet? User's date and time of account creation are: 16:44, 8 May 2007 my time, which is about four hours ago. In other news, user Particle has brought (The Guide To Selling Your Music In The iTunes Music Store (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) up for a deletion review here: Wikipedia:Deletion review#The Guide To Selling Your Music In The iTunes Music Store. Drop by if you have an opinion. I'll abstain from that one until this AfD closes. --Dynaflow 03:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete evidence of notability is not compelling, there does not appear to be much in the way of coverage in reliable independent sources, and there is a really strong smell of WP:COI about the whole thing. Guy (Help!) 11:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dynaflow has an unseen agenda here. He is the ONLY one involved in the tagging of this article. He is also the ONLY one involved in the tagging of the other pages. In fact it seems to be a concerted effort by Dynaflow to delete ALL pages generated by particle (this user). Yes, this sticks out like a sore thumb and there has to be some ulterior motive involved here. particle 19:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my response to that accusation from the first time you made it (above). --Dynaflow babble 20:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since User:Particle has mentioned that Mueller's book Ruling the Root provides a third-party source for the Simon Higgs article, I found the book and I'm literally including *all* the mentions of Higgs from that book, except his entry from the index:

Section 6.3.2: "Many others, including Simon Higgs and Karl Denninger, favored the rapid creation of new registries like Network Solutions, but with different top-level domain names."
Section 6.3.3: "On July 31, 1996, Bill Manning, an Information Sciences Institute (ISI) employee who worked with Postel on IANA functions, met with Chris Ambler, Simon Higgs, and another prospective registry operator to discuss the evaluation criteria."
There are also two entries that mention Higgs' name in: Table 6.3: TLD Applications to IANA, 1995-1996. One shows that he proposed the creation of a new top-level domain (TLD) called .news on 9/14/95. Another showed him proposing .coupons and .rebates on 12/5/95.

I think the above quotes are the ONLY support for Higgs' notability from that book. (He was also mentioned in the index, but I didn't check that). As you can see, there is nothing about the various Higgs' Laws in those quotes. EdJohnston 20:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure what all the commotion is about here. There are references in multiple places to Simon Higgs for a number of different things. Mueller's book is just one item. There's a ton of internet related stuff from the 1995-1996 Draft Postel period. There's enough to establish notability. However, if the Higgs' Laws are questioned and can't be sourced then maybe edit them out. But what Dynaflow is attempting to do is throw EVERYTHING out. That's not editorial. That's censorship/book-burning. Wikipedia is all about editorial. This isn't happening here in an objective fashion and this delete request is essentially an all or nothing proposition and includes innocent articles. If information is not sourced then edit it. But Dynaflow is attempting to erase documented history here. That's not right. particle 05:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References to Usenet are generally frowned upon by our guidelines. The book seemed different because books have credibility in our system. However the mentions of Simon Higgs in the book are not very profound, so they don't help much to establish his notability. Dynaflow asked for advice at WP:COI/N, and I was one of those who advised him to add the music-related articles to the AfD, because they seemed to establish a pattern of Conflict Of Interest. Dynaflow has merely followed the rules, so far as I can tell. It is better to try to offer substantive evidence than attack the messenger. If you were more frank about your situation regarding the music-related articles, or were willing to reveal your identity, it would improve the atmosphere of this discussion. Of course, Wikipedia doesn't require you to reveal your identity, but nothing requires us to vote to keep these articles either. EdJohnston 18:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit, yes. Delete, no. It's commendable that that Dynaflow has supporters, but I'd like to point out that Dynaflow's actions haven't exactly followed the rules. I'd like to refer to the origin of this thread, the speedy deletion of (The Guide To Selling Your Music In The iTunes Music Store (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)), which was substantially rewritten between the time the speedy delete notice was created and the time of deletion. This didn't meet the standards for a speedy delete and ignored the criteria noted here. However, following up on the success of the speedy delete, Dynaflow has taken it upon himself to AfD EVERYTHING else this author has contributed ignoring content, relevance and fact. Some of the pages are stubs with basic non-spammy content that Dynaflow is attempting to delete here. Makes no sense. particle 01:41, 13 May 2007 (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.