Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Forrester

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. --Tikiwont 10:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Forrester

edit
Gary Forrester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is a COI page which seems to have incorporated sources that don't even mention the subject to fake notability. Non-notable author, self-written autobio. IvoShandor 14:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep with a COI tag. No third-party edits, but does assert notability. --Blanchardb 14:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If you actually check that notability out, most of those sources do not include his name at all. Not only that, but some of the references are other pages on the Wikipedia! How can you assert notability and have a NPOV when you are writing about yourself, especially using blogs and whatnot for sources. Please check sources before saying he is referencing.--Kranar drogin 16:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: The sources are all weak, and do little to assert notability for the most part, a quick look
  • [1], publishers website (publisher seems to be non-notable)
  • [2], personal website, doesn't meet WP:V, WP:RS
  • [3], blog which doesn't even mention Forrester.
  • [4]: Blog, not a reliable source: sourced twice.
  • [5]: Article which seems to be promoting the book from the Illinois Bar Association, Forrester is a lawyer, and thus a member.
  • [6]: Has nothing to do with the Forrester
  • [7]: Wikipedia article, not reliable, nor does it have anything to do with Forrester
  • [8]: Another personal website, doesn't mention Gary Forrester, once again
  • [9]: A website about Bluegrass music, has nothing do with and doesn't mention Forrester.
  • [10]: More stuff about Bluegrass, the music is related to the subject but this source has nothing to do with Forrester.
I don't think I need to go on, the rest of the sources are the same crap. This kind of self-promotion has no place on Wikipedia. If this guy is so notable, then let a non-interested third party create an article with actual real references. IvoShandor 16:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR, with a lack of WP:RS and a big dollop of WP:COI. I consider the present article unsalvageable. Take a single sentence: "On 1 January 2007, Houseboating in the Ozarks was named "Best Book of 2006" by film & literary critic John Otto." If one goes to the blog referenced (item 4 in IvoShandor's list above), one finds that the blogger is not a "film & literary critic" but an Illinois lawyer, and one who happens to be personally acquainted with Forrester. Moreover, if one checks the archive, one finds that the blogger merely wrote that he liked Forrester's book best of all those he had personally read in 2006. If Forrester is so bloody notable, let some uninvolved party write an article about him; this one should go in the trash bin. Deor 22:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all in favour. L337 kybldmstr 23:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hi to IgoShandor, BlanchardB, Kranar drogin, Deor, and L337 kybldmstr. The above comments are considered in the spirit in which they are offered, i.e., to improve the content and reliability of Wikipedia. The Wikipedia standard of keeping comments civil is also noted. In short, the comments above are respected. However, the information below is also submitted for the purpose of achieving consensus.
  • The support of Blanchardb (above) for a "keep" is appreciated, and I note that Blanchardb is a meticulous commentator on articles for deletion. His comment that the subject matter of the article is "notable" but that some editing is required is noted, and will be acted upon. This is not an NPOV situation, as explained below, and the references fully support the factual statements asserted in the article. Indeed, a fair review of the comments above does not reveal any factual errors in the article, although errors of emphasis are asserted.
  • It appears that the primary offense in this article was the mistaken extension of it to the Illinois project tag, as per the comments of IgoShandor and Kranar drogin, both of whom are apparently from Illinois. Their comments seem to be well-placed insofar as it was error to suggest that the article was "good" on the Illinois project site, but that was a mistake of over-zealousness, not one of malice, and it has been corrected already. There is no disagreement ongoing, and sincere apologies are extended to IgoShandor and Kranar drogin. This has been a learning experience about the scope of Wikipedia project tags and external links.
  • Although the bulk of the submissions that prepared the article came via the user name Forrestergaz, the compilation of the article was a group effort derived from people familiar with the widely diverse range of matters mentioned. It was problematic assembling input from Australia, New Zealand, and America, and ensuring consistency and clarity, so a single user site for input proved helpful in this regard.
  • The article is not a marketing tool or a promotion tool. Nothing is being sold or promoted. It is intended as (a) factual, and (b) somewhat entertaining as well as enlightening.
  • For the musical references, the achievements mentioned in the article were documented in the Random House book that was published in 1991, with the ISBN number and other reference material cited in the article itself. It was certainly, by objective standards, a notable achievement to sweep the Australian country music gospel awards, and to finish in the national country music competition's final five two years running with two different compositions.
  • Wikipedia emphasizes that it is international in its scope and depth, and Australian achievements are recognized as as noteworthy as American achievements. See, for example, the Wikipedia article on musician Paul Kelly, who has covered a Forrester song and whose band has shared members with Forrester's. Achievements in New Zealand are also as notable as achievements in other countries.
  • Finishing second in the international competition sponsored by the International Bluegrass Music Association (Nashville, Tennessee) was also noteworthy under any fair criteria, and this is documented by Random House and other publications.
  • The three musical albums referenced in the article were produced by excellent record companies, RCA Records and Larrikin (one of Australia's top companies) among them. This is all verifiable and accurate, and referenced in the article.
  • Some of the references pre-date the internet, so they cannot be referenced on-line, but the references are stated nonetheless because they are accurate and accessible without a great deal of difficulty. Wikipedia articles often include such references.
  • Also, some references do not refer to Forrester by name, but they refer to either a pseudonym (as mentioned in the article) or to the work done or to the background information of a notable undertaking. Hopefully, those are regarded by Wikipedia as appropriate references, as the obvious purpose is to either (a) cite to references where the subject of the article is discussed, or (b) provide background information in general support of the matters addressed, some of which will not be know to readers not familiar with Australia, New Zealand, Indian reservations, bluegrass, and the like.
  • The achievements on behalf of Native American tribes are notable in their own right, along with the musical and literary achievements. See, for example, Wikipedia's article on Congresswoman Elizabeth Furse, who worked for Forrester at the Native American Program of Oregon Legal Services. In significant part because of her excellent work on behalf of the Klamath and Grand Ronde tribes, Furse was elected to Congress. Forrester was the director of the Native American program of Oregon Legal Services at the time, and with Furse and tribal leaders drafted legislation and lobbied it through the Congress. Links are cited to the Grand Ronde and Klamath tribes, and while it is true that those links don't expressly cite Forrester, that is not the purpose of the links.
  • Forrester also co-authored a book on American Indian law in 1991, published by Rothman's, which is accurate and verifiable (with ISBN number given), and it sold well among America's Indian tribes, government offices, law schools, and others.
  • Regarding literary notability, the first novel mentioned in the article was published in 2006 by Dufour Editions. The criticism of Dufour (above) is not justified. Dufour is a respected and long-standing small publisher, and many of the finest works in American literature have come from small publishers. Dufour is among the most prominent distributors of English and Irish literature in America, and has published a select group of novels and other literature on its own. With respect, the criticism of Dufour is unfounded.
  • Forrester's second novel was published in significant part by the University of Nebraska Press in 2007, along with contributions from some of the best writers in North America (Dubus, Chabon, etc.)
  • The Illinois State Bar Association commentary on the first novel was not in the nature of promotion by the Bar, as asserted in the comments above. Forrester is no longer an active member of the Illinois bar, as he now resides in New Zealand, and he could not represent Illinois clients even if he wished to. The ISBA critique was offered as an example of commentary, together with the reviews in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and the German magazine, which are accurate and verifiable.
  • Forrester's poetry has recently been accepted for publication, on a poem by poem basis, in Poetry New Zealand, the University of South Dakota Press, the Earl of Seacliffe Art Workshop in New Zealand, and others. This is verifiable and accurate. His book of New Zealand poems, written in 2007, will be published in 2008, although that fact will require up-dating in the article when the time comes.
  • This is not a COI situation, as has been asserted above, because the overriding question is whether the information in the article is accurate and verifiable, which it is (and none of the commentators has disputed that salient feature).
  • Nor is there any copyright issue.
  • The primary concern of Wikipedia is that an article be accurate and verifiable, and no concerns have been voiced about accuracy or verifiability, nor could there be any such concerns. Hard copies of verification can be provided if necessary to supplement the consensus, as not all supporting materials are available on-line.
  • Standing on its own, any of the three achievement areas mentioned in the article is notable: the Congressional legislation restoring two Indian tribes to treaty/tribal rights; the musical compositions and awards in Australia; and the literary production of the published first novel, the Nebraska publication of the second novel (excerpt), the poetry, and the book on Indian law. Taken together, the three areas are notable.
  • The project tags were added simply in the spirit that that is what the projects are for - to consider items that are of interest to particular regions, states, pursuits, etc. If those project tags were listed mistakenly, they should be removed, but the understanding of project tags and external links has been that they are there not to make specific citations to a particular person or work, but to subject matter of common interest. There was no ill-will or intent to mislead with the project tags - simply a misunderstanding of Wikipedia terminology and process. Easily fixed, with appropriate apologies to all concerned, but this does not impact on the notability or quality of the article itself.
  • In short, it is respectfully submitted that this article passes Wikipedia's notability standard on three separate bases that are joined together in the one article; that the article is not promoting in any way, but rather factual and verifiable; and that any problems with external links or project tags may be easily remedied (if in fact a problem is perceived). Regarding the criticism of John Otto's blog review of the first novel, he has been reviewing films and literature by way of his blog for something like 15 years, and he is barely known to Forrester - Blogs are increasingly recognised as perfectly valid ways of reviewing literature and films and music, and Otto came to the well-researched conclusion that is cited in the article. But that reference to Otto can be removed if need be.
  • In sum, the comments of the people above who support deletion are welcome, because they are offered in good faith and in support of improving Wikipedia. On the basis of those comments, the article may well be improved. Certainly Wikipedia's standards are respected. But it is submitted that the matters referenced in the article are noteworthy, accurate, and verifiable. In the absence of anything factual to the contrary, the article should be retained with appropriate editing. Thank you. --Forrestergaz 01:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi IvoShandor - I am just not very adept in navigating my way around Wikipedia, so I don't really know how to correspond with you through the most effective channel, or even how to effectively provide input regarding an article that is proposed for deletion. I have apologized to you and to Kandar by way of an "edit" on your user sites (for suggesting via the Illinois project that the article was a "good" one), because I didn't know how to apologize otherwise. My email address is [email protected], if you would like to correspond via email, and I will be sure to get back to you. I have taken your advice, and reviewed the several "WP" sites you refer to - thanks for that. I am a little embarrassed at the "self promotion" assertion, because frankly I was reluctant to go down the Wikipedia path at all, but I received a lot of input and encouragement via email, which I assembled over a couple of months from Australia and the USA and posted to the Wikipedia article you are commenting on. I would hate to see all of that hard work go to waste just because I was guilty of over-reaching. I do hope that you believe that the article has merit, but I won't argue the point. Thank you for your comments and advice.--Forrestergaz 02:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't need an apology, I don't care about that stuff, honest mistake. I don't believe the article is workable at all in its current form. The discussion shall play out. I strongly suggest that you familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines outlined above as they will help you with any further endeavors. IvoShandor 02:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK - thanks for that. I didn't offer the apology because you "needed" it, but only because I thought it was appropriate, and still do. I am certainly going to follow your advice in familiarizing myself with the policies and guidelines you've outlined, which will help considerably in harnessing the energies that many people have brought to this article. Also, I am aware of some other articles that are in the works, unrelated to the one under discussion, so I will be sure that they benefit from your advice at the outset rather than in mid-stream, as I have done. Thanks again. I am sure an agreeable article will be the end result of these exchanges. And don't hesitate to email me on the address given above, should you wish to discuss in more detail. I feel a bit handicapped because I have no way to correspond except by way of these posts, so far as I know. Greetings from New Zealand. --Forrestergaz 03:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete autobio of a non-notable apparent self-publicist. Article is based on WP:SPS and completely fails WP:RS Ohconfucius 04:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Comment Here is a direct quote from Ohconfucius's user site, as chief among his pet peeves: "I have noticed considerable junk from self-promoters, people who self-publish a book or CD, and think they are notable just for those reasons." The article in question, which he votes to delete, is not about a self-publisher or a self-produced CD. The writer's first novel was published by a first-rate publisher in 2006, and excerpts of the second novel were published by a first-rate publisher in 2007, and three record albums produced by RCA and by top Australian recording companies in the 1980s and 1990s, plus published poetry in first-class journals and a published textbook on American Indian Law by Rothman's in 1991, plus references in numerous books and journals including the Random House one and the Bluegrass Unlimited ones times four, all of which are verifiable and the basis of the facts stated in the article. ISBN numbers are provided where possible, and references are made to both on-line and paper sources. If there have been too many inclusions in the references or external links for the purpose of providing background information, those can be deleted, but they are not irrelevant. Arguably, for example, a link to tribes that have been restored due to the legal work of the subject of the article are helpful to any reader wishing to know more about that tribe's history. This article is referenced far more than many that have been kept, and if ego was really at play there could be a lot more references, but the article was a composite effort that was channeled through numerous sources (even if a single user site was the vehicle for posting, because of the problems of distance between NZ and Australia and America) with reader interest in mind rather than pumping up the reference list with all sorts of things.--Forrestergaz 04:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Congratulations, Gaz, you may have read some of my Userpage. But you missed the bit which says "I have found it a ploy by a minority of users who use information here on my userpage against me personally in deletion debates. I reckon that most experienced editors quickly see through it. So please, don't go there." Ohconfucius 06:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. I've changed the "Keep" in Forrestergaz's preceding message to "Comment," since this user has already registiered a keep opinion above. Deor 12:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note - I have deleted the reference in the text to the John Otto blog, in light of the comments. I agree that the blog is not the best reference, after reading Wikipedia's standards more carefully. However, some of the comments above lump together "references" and "external links" as sources. They are not both sources. A reference is a source, and a source may be cited in both the reference section and in the text. An external link is not a "source," so it is appropriate to leave certain links in when they connect up to the article in question. The comments about an external link failing to make a specific reference to the author are not well-grounded. They misunderstand the nature of "external links." If the consensus is that the external links to this article need to be scaled down, no problem, but they were intended to be reader-friendly.--222.155.139.47 05:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just a quick reply to Ohconfucius and Deor (above). Ohconfucius, I don't believe anything I've said anywhere on Wikipedia, in comments or in article submissions or in talk or anywhere at all, could be characterized as an "attack" on anybody. My only point was the obvious one, that the article in question is not regarding a person who is self-published, but rather one who has published widely via mainstream publishers, had three award-winning musical albums produced by first-class companies, and achieved (in a cooperative effort) legislation through the US Congress that reestablished the legal existence of two separate Oregon tribes. I take very seriously Wikipedia's admonishments against uncivility and personal attacks. And I respect Wikipedia's standards of notability, verification, and accuracy. The goal is to get this right, not to "attack." And Deor, I had previously changed "Keep" to "Comment" so I'm not sure what your comment above relates to, unless we may have been using the talk-page at the same time and somehow overlapped. Anyway, no harm done, because we agree that "Comment" was the appropriate designation.--Forrestergaz 19:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gaz, you appear to have been taking great care in reading the Userpages of editors voting against you. I already posted a warning on mine that using what I say against me would be construed as an ad hominem attack, so it isn't as if you were not forewarned. Now you're claiming it wasn't a personal attack! Hahaha! Ohconfucius 15:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, this diff shows that it was I who changed it. Deor 21:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I fully acknowledge (and appreciate) that you changed it. I was just a bit bemused, because I thought I had changed it too, exactly the same, but perhaps mine didn't go through. As I mentioned to IvoShandor above, I am a real klutz when it comes to navigating my way around Wikipedia. To be honest, I only learned how to insert my electronic signature as a result of these exchanges, so that's another way in which this discussion has been good. Thanks for the clarification. --Forrestergaz 01:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On this third day into the process, it may be well to concentrate on the substance of the debate. Ohconfucious is simply plain wrong when he says the article is based on WP:SPS. There is nothing self-published at all, and the publications are notable and verified with ISBN numbers and other citations. If references are considered to be the problem, this will be fixed by adding perhaps a dozen or more references for every fact in the article, from reputable newspapers, books, and magazines in Australia, America, Germany, and other parts of the world. Every fact is true. The other main criticism is that some of the external links do not mention the author. That is easily fixed, if need be - we'll just reduce the links to those that do mention the author. No problem. A third comment focuses on notability. But Random House and RCA Records and the University of Nebraska Press and Rothman's and Dufour Editions and landmark legislation shepherded through Congress and sweeping categories in the Australian Country Music Awards and feature articles in Bluegrass Unlimited etc. etc. etc. etc. are not everyday activities. A fourth concern, and maybe this is the big one, is that the text of the article has been channelled through the forrestergaz user site. That was for convenience. If that is the problem, it will be fixed, because there are many users who are familiar with the facts asserted in the article. Wikipedia doesn't ban such contributions outright, but emphasizes the facts and verifiability, which are not at issue. A fifth problem may be that forrestergaz over-reached when he characterized his article as "Good" for the Illinois project, and to that I have pled guilty and apologized profusely. It won't happen again. If the project tags need to be reduced, no problem. In short, the revision and re-referencing of the article is anticipated with joy, once this process has run its course. Every single concern that has been voiced is a comparatively easy fix. Also, if there were an inclination to do so, this discussion could be flooded with numerous commentators who would support the retention of the article, notability, etc., but why lobby people to do so? The article will survive on its own, in the end, because it is true and verifiable.--222.155.139.47 08:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel sorry for whoever has to sort through this novel you have written here, you are a lawyer, that's for sure. ;-) IvoShandor 13:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Vanity / Spam / Autocruft / COI (and from a WP:SPA) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello to Ruhrfisch (above). I looked at your user site, and it is very impressive. Ironically, though, that user site lists all of the awards you have been acknowledged for, plus comments, plus your own summation of your achievements, and I have no reason whatsoever to doubt what you have said and your achievements are very impressive. I do note that if somebody wanted to be critical of you (which I do not wish to be) he or she could say that your site is "self-promoting." That is the whole point - I am much more concerned that your site is accurate, and I am sure that it is, and it is not objectionable in the slightest, even though you (like almost everybody else on the planet) have summarised your own achievements. The same applies to Wikipedia articles. The test is truth and verifiability, not whether the articles may cross the line into what might be characterised as "self-promotion." As I say below, if that were the litmus test, very few articles about living people or music groups or whatever would survive. An article HAS to list the achievements of its subject. That's what an encyclopedia does. And if the article is any good, it will be well-written with a bit of self-deprecating humour. Look at Raymond Carver's article on Wikipedia. There is no mention of the fact, or not much mention, that Carver didn't write his stuff - rather, it was largely written by his editor and his wife, and Carver's name was put on it. This stuff on Carver was written to promote the sale of his books after he was dead. On the other hand, he is clearly a "notable" and merits an article - just a more truthful and complete one, including the recent NY Times articles that cast doubt on his authorship.--Forrestergaz 19:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi again IvoShandor, and regarding your comment (two notches above), I think you make the point that I have been trying to make. The subject of this article is a novelist and a lawyer. And the law practice has not been restricted to handlings wills in small-town Illinois - it has extended to representation of Indian tribes in the most important legislation of their tribal lives, i.e., the passage of legislation that restored their tribal treaty rights after years of "termination." It has also extended to representation of Aboriginal clients in the Australian outback. These are faithfully recorded in the article, and further documentation/verification will be added, now that you have raised issues regarding sourcing, so that there is no doubt in anyone's mind. And the novels are not at all what ohconfucius has alleged, "self-published." I'm not perturbed by such incorrect allegations, but they are simply and demonstrably factually wrong. And above all, this exercise is about facts, not about name-calling or false characterisation. Wikipedia has no policy against channelling information through an interested party's user site (if they did, there wouldn't be many articles left about living people), but Wikipedia is concerned with facts. The novels have ISBN numbers, references, etc., and these will be multi-sourced once this current exercise is completed. For that, once again, thanks are due to all concerned. Note also that many of the comments above that say "DELETE" are just unsupported short lines with no back-up and no discussion, which Wikipedia's policies expressly state are inappropriate for these types of consensus-reaching attempts. So when you look fairly at the commentary above, you see unfounded and undocumented brief statements that say "DELETE" and nothing more to back it up, or you see challenges to sources that are in fact challenges to external links. The primary offense that seems to have prompted these exchanges is "self-promotion," and that has been acknowledged insofar as the effort to plug into the Illinois project tag was overly-zealous. But the article itself should be assessed on its merits using Wikipedia standards, not on the basis of anger at a mistake. Actually, I think we'd all agree on that.--Forrestergaz 19:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Posting a lengthy rant after each delete comment is just bad etiquette, common sense on that one. Ruhrfisch's user page is not subject to any of the standards Wikipedia articles are, nor is any personal website he maintains. Come off it. IvoShandor 19:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what I see is a few sources that are of questionable reliability and other things you have labeled as external links that are in fact being used to support the text. Call them what you want, the result is one big unsalvageable mess that needs to be completely rewritten by a third party to satisfy Wikipedia inclusion guidelines and policies. Please stop acting as if there is no good reason to delete this piece. IvoShandor 19:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi IvoShandor. Where we differ is in the recommendation that the article be "deleted." It is an easy matter to have the article "rewritten by a third party," because the original article was essentially written by third parties anyway, then collated together via the forrestergaz user site. No problem. And I guess I respectfully disagree that the article is an "unsalvageable mess," because I think that anyone objectively reading it would conclude that it was well-written and informative and comprehensive. Your main concern, as I understand it from your several contributions above, is with sourcing, and that is also capable of a quick fix by providing voluminous sources (which will be done at the conclusion of this discussion process, although I note from other Wikipedia articles that some modesty is in order when piling on sources). How do you understand "external links"? I thought they were different from references, in that they just referred readers to items that may be of common interest, even if the subject matter of the article wasn't specifically referenced? Have I got that wrong? In sum, I confess that I do believe there is "no good reason to delete this piece," although the article could be improved with more extensive sourcing, as will be done. As far as "ranting" and etiquette, I did look up Wikipedia's guidelines for deletion, and the whole point is to have an informed discussion, an exchange of ideas, not to simply say the word "delete" (as some have done) and not justify the deletion by pointing to factual errors in the article (there are none). I am responding to other commentators when it is necessary to do so to stay with the facts, and when it is necessary to correct clear errors and misstatements, and in an effort to arrive at a consensus. The abuse of "etiquette" is by those who are not engaging in discussion, but simply name-calling or making incorrect statements and leaving it at that. I should emphasize that I don't believe you are doing that - you have made some very insightful comments, that are appreciated.--Forrestergaz 21:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here are some principles from Wikipedia's "Guide to Deletion": (1) "The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion." (2) Always "consider whether the article could be expanded or cleaned up rather than deleting, and use the appropriate mechanism instead of AFD." (3) "The author can make his/her case like everyone else." (4) "Always explain your reasoning." (5) "Votes without rationales may be discounted." (6) "The reasons given for deletion should avoid Wikipedia-specific acronyms." (7) Contributors to the discussion should make a "Well-argued, fact-based case based upon Wikipedia policy in a civil manner." (8) "Majority voting is not the determining factor in whether a nomination succeeds or not." (9) Failure to conform to NPOV is usually remedied through editing. (10) "verifiable facts and evidence" are the keys to the decision, not opinions.--Forrestergaz 22:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, we got it, you want to keep the article and disagree with everyone who wants to delete. You're beating your own argument to death. IvoShandor 22:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, IvoShandor, I am not simply "disagreeing." I am trying to focus on facts and on Wikipedia's standards. What "everyone wants" is not the standard, even if it were true. NO ONE is making a sound or credible or reasoned case for deletion - they are simply name-calling (because they didn't like an (acknowledged) mistake that was made when "self-promotion" was extended to the Illinois project page). When you take away the word "DELETE" from the entries by "everyone" above, you find almost no substance in support of that draconian result, and no reasoning. I have been endeavouring to get a dialogue going, a discussion, as Wikipedia expects, but no one wants to do that. The word "delete" is not reasoned discourse, and it is not compliant with Wikipedia standards.--Forrestergaz 22:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is your opinion, assailing everyone's arguments, which at least mine are reasoned and several people of voice their opinion per others. I find it hard to believe that everyone saying delete doesn't understand Wikipedia policies as you obviously do, demonstrated by your ability to copy, and paste them here verbatim. I don't think you're helping your cause by ignoring all concerns and declaring that the article meets Wikipedia standards for inclusion. I will no longer be addressing this AfD, I have made my well-reasoned point, disagree all you want, assert all you want. I don't care, it won't change my opinions which ARE based on Wikipedia policy. Go away, leave me alone. IvoShandor 22:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- ::* OK - let's get specific and focus on facts, not opinions. (1) The very first comment says "seems" - that was error, to suggest that external links "faked" notability. It was simply wrong. (2) The third comment confuses "sources" with "external links." The references will be supplemented to make every fact stated even more iron-clad. (3) "Self-written autobio" is false, as per the reply. Just because entries come via one user site doesn't mean that that site was the author of the assertions. The test is truth & verification. (4) "self-promoted on Illinois project" - guilty as charged, apologize profusely, didn't appreciate how Wikipedia plays out in these project tags, stupid, sorry, won't happen again. (5) "blogs" - now removed, although blogs can be ok. (6) Dufour Editions "seems" to be non-notable. This is a slur, and not in keeping with the spirit of these discussions. Dufour is a fine established publisher. (7) Some external links don't mention the author. So what? They can be removed, if need be, but if we apply that standard throughout Wikipedia, we've got a lot of work to do. (8) "The sources are crap." Another slur, not what Wikipedia's standards expect. The sources are all legitimate, and a hundred more will be provided if that's what Wikipedia wants. (9) "The Illinois Bar Association is promoting the book" - simply false and malicious. It's just untrue. It was a review of the book by a totally objective person unknown to the author. (10) "Let a third party create the article." Basically, that was done already with this one, but we can remove "forrestergaz" from the mix if that is desireable. The point is to focus on the merits of the article - truth and verifiability. (11) "Delete per all in favour" - what kind of discussion is that? (12) "Article is based on SPS" - totally false. See ISBN Numbers, Random House, Record Companies, publishers. (13) "Delete" by Ruhrfisch - what kind of discussion is that? (14) "bad etiquette" is actually the refusal to follow Wikipedia guidelines for discussion pertaining to deletion, piling up a series of "deletes" without reasoning to further an agenda to delete an article that merits being kept under Wikipedia standards. (15) "a few sources of questionable reliability" - now we are getting somewhere - the argument for delete is reduced to "a few sources" and "external links that support the text." This we can fix, but this is a far far cry from deletion. This is a good thing that has come from the discussion - narrowing the original comment to "a few" (still undesignated). (16) "unsalvageable mess" - not only is this inappropriate name-calling unsupported by reasoned analysis, it is objectively and manifestly untrue. Anyone who is fair-minded would agree that the article is well-written, and nobody has yet disputed a fact in it, because every fact is true.--Forrestergaz 22:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The plot thickens. I looked up IvoShandor's user site. IvoShandor is the guy who started all of this "delete" dialogue. He is apparently an Illinois guy, upset that a mistake was made in wrongly promoting the article as "good" on the Illinois project tag. He refuses to accept the sincere apology for that, and the withdrawal. He throws around swear words in his discussion, and says "go away and leave me alone." Having started this discussion, he wants to bow out of it without offering any reasoned analysis. More importantly, IvoShandor has promoted/authored a Wikipedia article on one Larry LeSueur. Check it out. Among the citations at the end of IvoShandor's article on LeSeuer are "Voice of America," the "United States Information Agency," and the "International Broadcasting Bureau." Maybe, somewhere in the bowels of these citations, there is some mention of Larry LeSeuer, but I couldn't find any, and if there are any they are pretty well hidden. Most likely, IvoShandor has included these links for the very sensible reason that the links will be of interest to people who are interested in the Larry LeSeuer story, as background and context. That is fine, and that is precisely what was done with the article IvoShandor wants to delete. Larry LeSeuer is a bit obscure, but I would vote to support his article being kept in Wikipedia, even if he's not "notable" by conservative standards. He was interesting. He did good things. IvoShandor has done a good thing to bring him to the world's attention after he was long forgotten. But it is just plain onery of IvoShandor to base his chief criticism of the Gary Forrester article on the allegation that some of the sources don't mention him, when he has done the same thing with LeSeuer, for the same good reasons! For some reason, IvoShandor thinks it is notable that the 93-year-old LeSeuer died while listening to Colin Powell's lies at the United Nations about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass distruction. IvoShandor doesn't comment on whether these lies were to be believed, by Larry LeSeuer or by anyone else. Is there a political edge to IvoShandor's agenda, given that the Forrester article makes clear that the writer/musician/lawyer for Indian tribes has been an antiwar activist all his life, including anti-war activities against America's murderous course in Iraq? Only IvoShandor knows for sure, and he's not saying. --222.155.216.84 07:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • EVERYBODY self-promotes. Here's an example from IvoShandor's site: "I do a lot of work concerning those places in Illinois, including articles and photography. As a result, I have seen some of the most interesting, off the beaten path places in the state. I also harbor a fairly serious interest in architecture and do some work in that area as well. I have raised around thirty articles to Good article status, some were lower quality articles that already existed but most I created from scratch. So far I have one Featured article under my belt. Most of my work lately has been surrounding the 1832 Black Hawk War. Work here has led me to create accounts at other WikiMedia projects. I have accounts (links to my user pages follow) at WikiSource, WikiCommons (where I am one of the top uploaders." Go for it, Ivo - promote yourself. The standards for a Wikipedia article are truth and verifiability. I accept what you've said as true, even if it is self-promoting. Self-promoting isn't a crime, it's a national pastime. --222.155.216.84 09:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.216.84 (talk) 08:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of the basic assumptions of Wikipedia is Assume Good Faith. Please practice it. I became aware of this AFD because of the messages you posted on IvoShandor and Kranar Drogin's talk pages. I read the article and do not see that it merits inclusion in Wikipedia. You are free to post a fair amount of information about yourself on your User Page and much of what is in the article could conceivably be moved to your page (assuming you are Gary Forrester). See for example User:TonyTheTiger. As for my user page, I put a lot of hard work into my Wikipedia edits and am proud of the articles I have helped promote to Featured or Good status. When others have recognized my efforts with awards, I note this on my user page. I do not claim to be a magnetic stir bar in real life - it is a nom de Wiki I have assumed because I value my privacy. If you truly can not tell the difference between a user page and an article, then I am sorry. Please assume good faith, and don't confuse the issue - this is an AFD, not a forum for your criticism and personal attacks on those whose opinions differ from yours. Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS Please don't confuse truth and notability. It is true I walked the dog, ate breakfast, and read the newspaper this morning. I also bathed and dressed myself (more self promotion, I know). All these are true, but none of them are notable in the context of an encyclopedia article. Please see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on verifiability, reliable sources (blogs are not), and notability. I hope this helps clarify things. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ruhrfisch's comment, immediately preceding, is exactly the kind of reasoned discourse that Wikipedia expects. Although he and I disagree, he has put his comments in a reasonable and articulate way, arguing his position effectively. One small error - I haven't posted on IvoShandor or Kranar drogin's user sites - I have only commented in this discussion. Ruhrfisch makes the very important point that "truth" should not be confused with "notability," and he gives examples of non-notable truths - walking the dog, eating breakfast, etc. Here is why I respectfully disagree with Ruhrfisch.- the following examples from the article are nothing like walking a dog: (1) two novels with first-rate publishers, Dufour and the University of Nebraska (extended excerpt); (2) legislation through the US Congress restoring two Oregon tribes that were nearly destroyed by racism; (3) three record albums, produced by RCA and by leading Australian companies; (4) a sweep of the Australian grammies in the country-gospel category, and top-five finishes two years in a row followed by a second-place finish in the IBMA's international competition; (5) another published book on American Indian law, by Rothman's; (6) recent New Zealand poetry published by a slew of respected journals; (7) proof provided by ISBN numbers, Random House's characterization of "major figure in Australian country music, a host of complimentary articles in the bible of bluegrass music, Bluegrass Unlimited, etc. etc. etc. My argument boils down to this - those things are more than walking a dog, and they compare very favourably with hundreds if not thousands of articles that Wikipedia has kept.--222.155.216.84 18:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Kranar drogin - the only people who have engaged in "personal attack" are you and your fellow Illinoisan, IvoShandor, using swear words and gratuitous insults instead of reasoned discourse such as Ruhrfisch's and mine. Although there is an "assumption" of good faith, as Ruhrfisch points out, that "assumption" is not etched in stone, and it can be waived by inappropriate conduct. I have never argued in a court of law, for example (and I know of no one who has done so) that an opponent's argument was "crap" or "shit" - nor have I said to an opponent or a judge "go away and leave me alone." I have apologized to both you and Ivo for the mistake I made, which was to characterize the Forrester article as "good" on the Illinois project page. It was not a mistake of malice, it was a mistake of dumbness, and I am sorry. However, neither of you will accept this sincere apology, and there is not much more I can do about it. Was it an attempt at self-promotion? Yes, of course. I have merely pointed out that we all self-promote, and we do. Ruhrfisch is correct that there is a difference between an article and a user site, but my point was not to blur the two, but to point out that we all self-promote to one degree or another. That is why Wikipedia has its NPOV policy - not to stop self-promotion, but to make sure that it does not render an article untrue or unverifiable. Lastly, regarding IvoShandor's article on Larry LeSeuer, the only point being made was that his criticism of the Forrester article, which started this whole long chain of discussion, was precisely concerned with things he has himself violated in the LeSeuer article - sources that do not name the subject. It is fair argument to point that out. All I am saying is that every external link or other link does not have to specifically name a subject - it can provide background. And I am pointing that out without swearing and without name-calling. It is simply inconsistent to suggest that different standards should apply to different articles.--222.155.216.84 18:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant independant coverage. Epbr123 19:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you, Epbr123. This does seem to be a common thread in the reasonable comments that have been made, that there is insufficient "independent coverage." That will be corrected following this discussion, and in addition to Random House, Bluegrass Unlimited, the St. Louis Post Dispatch, Dufour Editions, the University of Nebraska Press, RCA Records, Larrikin Records (Australia), the University of South Dakota Press, Poetry New Zealand, and other independent sources, a good number of other "independent coverage" will be provided to support the factual statements in the article. Query whether, in light of that, the appropriate designation might be to revise the article, rather than to delete it. In any event, your comment is appreciated.--Forrestergaz 19:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did some more looking, and found that Gary Forrester scored 199 unique Ghits. Aside from a few commercial sites like Amazon.com, where the Houseboating book ranked in the 1.7 millionsths, and B&N, the vast majority of hits were for a number of namesakes, Gary Forrester democrat legislator from Billings, another from California. There was mention of the subject in a directory listing of Phebus & Koster and one or two links re Indian law - for example, he was cited in "Playing reindeer games: Native Alaskans and the Federal Trust Doctrine", Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, Spring 1999 by Dillingham, Terese. I concede that the books may not be self published, but the article itself still miserably fails WP:SELF. Ohconfucius 22:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So now it's come down to this! Counting Google hits! And distinguishing Wikipedia subjects from other that might have similar names! If counting Google hits is the game, and if that is Wikipedia's standard (it's not), check out & count the Google hits for these people who have Wikipedia articles: Arthur Henry Adams, Fleur Adcock, John Allison, John Barr, James K. Baxter, Jenny Bornholdt, Thomas Bracken, Charles Brasch, Alistair Campbell, Glenn Colquhoun, Allen Curnow, John Dennison, Lauris Edmond, Denis Glover, William Hart-Smith, Sam Hunt, Robin Hyde, Andrew Johnston, Michele Leggott, R. A. K. Mason, Gary McCormick, Cilla McQueen, Mok TzeMing, W. H. Oliver, Count Geoffrey Potocki de Montalk, Rosie Scott, Keith Sinclair, Jacqueline Sturm, Brian Turner, Ian Wedde, Alison Wong Catherine Chidgey, Hugh Cook, Nigel Cox, David Hill,Robyn Donald, Kate Duignan, John Dunmore, Dorothy Eden, Stevan Eldred-Grigg, Chris Else, Abby Gaines, Robin Hyde, Witi Ihimaera, Annamarie Jagose, Fiona Kidman; Elizabeth Knox, Craig Marriner, Mark Prebble, Owen Marshall, Ian Middleton, Michael Noonan, Rosie Scott, Lucinda Thorne,Arthur Baysting, Alannah Currie, Dave Dobbyn, Hamish Gee, Luke Hurley, Karl Kippenberger, Phil Knight, Shona Laing, Willow Macky, Paul Martin, Dalvanius Prime, Age Pryor, James Reid, John Rowles, Bic Runga, Boh Runga, Matthew Thomas, Jon Toogood, John Joseph Woods - Believe me, I could go on and on and on. Google hits are simply not the Wikipedia standard. And the novels in question were only published in 2006-2007. And Wikipedia is not xenophobic. Just because people in New Zealand or Australia are not in a position to score Google hits on the scale of people in North America doesn't mean they are unworthy. Google is international. It wants to change the world. And not every book or magazine article, especially books or articles written at the advent of the Internet such as the Random House book or the Bluegrass Unlimited articles or the reviews or reports of things that came out in the 1980s or early 1990s, makes it on-line. This will make it easy for Wikipedia. We'll just get rid of every article from anywhere in the world that doesn't score a designated number of Google hits.--Forrestergaz 23:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No, you are quite right. 'Counting Ghits is not research', as I am also fond of quoting (you know that, as you've studied my Userpage). However, it can be a useful indicator. So far, you have done little to indicate that you warrant a wiki entry by fulfilling WP:BIO. So, let's see some of the sources you were saying exist, instead of waffling ranting and intimidating. Ohconfucius 00:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Ohconfucius. I agree that we should put aside this deletion process, and get to work on building the source material to Wikipedia's satisfaction. The only complicating factor for a quick turn-around is that I am in New Zealand, and people who have assisted with the writing of this article and the accessing of source material are in Australia, Oregon, South Dakota, Illinois, and other places. I will get in touch with them promptly, because the bulk of the source material is found in hardcopy rather than via sources such as Google. Partly this is because of the date(s) of the source material, and partly this is because the source material simply wasn't (by its nature) the kind that made it to "Ghit-counting." The Random house book, for example, is not referenced on Google. Nor are the Bluegrass Unlimited articles, or countless reviews of things. I do not propose to string-cite every single article or book or record review or piece of legislation that mentions the name "Gary Forrester," but I do propose to provide a selection that addresses truth and verification. I do appreciate the research and effort you have obviously put into this, and I propose that I could probably turn this around, as per your request, within a couple of weeks if I get right onto it with my overseas contacts. Since much of the stuff is hard copy, I would be happy to send photocopies to whomever you suggest, or to whomever may want to see and assess these materials for truth and verification. Alternatively, if there is a way to load this stuff onto Google, I am happy to do that, but I don't know how to. Ironically, this Comment I am making is reflective of precisely the opposite of what got some of the other commentators annoyed - i.e., until the past year, I was not at all interested in "self-promotion," despite the records and the books and the legislation and the poems and Australian awards, but I was encouraged to do so vis-a-vis Wikipedia and agreed to act as the channel for the put-together. I think you will also be agreeable that the number of books sold during a person's lifetime is not the litmus test for notability. John Kennedy Toole, for example, never sold a thing in his life, and never published in his life, and committed suicide, but thereafter his mother (with the help of Walker Percy) "self-promoted" her son's work, and was so successful that her son received a posthumous Pulitzer and richly deserves his place on Wikipedia, even if it was for only a single work. Anyway, I suggest that the course you have suggested is the reasonable one, and that this "deletion" process be discontinued, and that (say) a couple of weeks be allowed to supplement the references with a representation (not an encyclopedia) of materials that provide additional support for the facts asserted. Is that agreeable to all concerned? I must say, in terms of the long list of other Wikipedia articles I mentioned to you in the earlier exchange, I wonder if a problem might be that the "Forrester" site is a bit longer (including three photographs) than the typical Wikipedia article for a person with this level of achievement. Maybe the length of the article, and its more comprehensive format, caused some of the commentators to think it was unmeritorious. But I respectfully submit that a well-written and presentable article is always a good thing, no matter how humble the subject matter. Cheers, and thank you for your very constructive suggestion. I'll look forward to seeing if we now have consensus. If this is the end of the substantive discussion, and there are no further reasonable comments, I believe it is fair to say that we have reached a resolution.--Forrestergaz 02:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On my user site, I have just received the following comments, which are helpful and relevant to the discussion above. I will cut & paste them here. Ohconfucius's tone and thoughtfulness in the following remarks are appreciated, even though I respectfully disagree that with the guess the "the article is headed for deletion," because of the overriding Wikipedia standard that NPOV problems are addressed normally by better sourcing (which is exactly what Ohconfucius sensibly proposes below and above). Also, I could concede for pragmatic reasons, as Ohconfucius constructively suggests, but I won't because I think it would be wrong to do so. Any reader of the lengthy exchanges above will know that I have not threatened or insulted or attacked or used foul language, but other commentators have done so. I am not one who is inclined to be cowed by such tactics, even though I do anticipate in any event a much more thoroughly-footnoted article (in the old fashioned way) than the existing version. I just would prefer to do that without the interim step of deletion, which I regard as pejorative and unfounded based on Wikipedia standards. Here (below) are Ohconfucius's latest (and well-received) comments:

"I think the article is headed for deletion. I would suggest that you did not fight it any further this round. Tempers are flared, and the best way to cool the debate is to concede. However, you will be glad to know deletion is not a permanent process, and that many articles are deleted only to be re-created in much better and stronger stead. I assume from what you say that you will be able to create an article with sufficient sources to justify its place in wikipedia, particularly per WP:BIO and its subsets WP:MUSICIAN and WP:PROF. It would be a shame, but for the short duration which you would require to put together the relevant proof, the absence of the article will be justified, I am sure." Cheers, Ohconfucius 04:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC) "Another suggestion is that you should consider encouraging the other contributing editors of the Gary Forrester article to create Users here, and work on the article under their own names. It would certainly give the 'more accurate' impression by your account that this was a collaborative effort, and avoid the WP:COI breach which caused much of the distrust in the first place." Ohconfucius 04:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC) --Forrestergaz 04:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vanispamcruftisement. This needs said: ISBN numbers do not even prove that a work exists, let alone that it wasn't self published - ∅ (∅), 16:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The comment immediately above is yet another of those that adds nothing whatsoever to the dialogue except unsupported opinion and bias. Have a look at the comments that vote "delete" and see what they are saying. If I were thinner-skinned, I would take offense against a comment such as "ISBN numbers do not prove that a work exists, let alone that it wasn't self-published." Every one of the books cited in the article in question was published, and every ISBN number is valid. If not, why doesn't someone just come out and make that accusation instead of repeated personal attacks that are defamatory. You know, some of the comments made above by the likes of IvoShandor are in fact actionable in court. Now don't go saying I'm making a threat or a personal attack, because I'm not - I'm just saying that some of the attacks above are actionable in court, which they are, and the people who are making them anonymously should realize that their identities are readily discernible should anyone (and I emphasize, not me) decide to sue them for making such defamatory statements about Wikipedia contributors. It is defamatory to state to others that facts in an article have been "faked" etc. The people who have made these charges should withdraw them, and I am asking them to. If they want to say I need more sources, I'll do that - I'll source this article to death. If they want to say it was wrong of me to "self-promote" by declaring the article "good" in the Illinois project site, I have admitted to that wrong and apologized and the "good" designation has been withdrawn and won't happen again. But if they are accusing me of lies or faking information, that is crossing the line, and they should apologize. As I say, sooner or later someone is going to sue somebody who recklessly makes such remarks on pages such as this. Ivo - I'm looking forward to your apology in particular. I would appreciate it within 24 hours.--222.155.216.84 18:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is incredible, Chaser's action in "blocking this IP for making legal threats." All you have to do is READ the comment that provoked his action, which EXPRESSLY says that there is no legal threat. It is not a legal threat to point out the truth that a comment is defamatory. A threat would be "I am going to sue you." That is a threat. In this instance, the comment was PRECISELY AND EMPHATICALLY the opposite.--Forrestergaz 21:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per IvoShandar's reference breakdown. It doesn't help matters when the references aren't linked to the text they are supposed to reference, but it looks like the accusations of vanispamcruft several editors have suggested are appropriate. Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO, WP:N, or WP:MUSIC. Constant berating of editors supporting deletion is a perfect example of WP:COI at work, additionally it's a superb way of shifting consensus away from the subject and comes across merely as desperation. If indeed an article's subject was truly notable then a Wikipedia article about them would be inconsequential, when this level of desperation is shown I ask myself, why? For this level of personal involvement someone either has too high an opinion of themselves or it's an attempt to promote themselves for some reason, usually money. ---- WebHamster 20:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See? The discussion just gets more and more ill-informed. Smashville, above, just didn't read the article. NOWHERE does the article assert that Forrester won a Flannery O'Connor. The article asserts, accurately, that Forrester was fictionalized as a character in the works of Philip F. Deaver, who did win a Flnnery O'Connor for those works. How is a person meant to respond in a constructive dialogue when people keep misrepresenting the facts, over and over and over again????? And of course the IBMA was located in Owensboro, until it moved to Nashville. I should know - I played there, in Owensboro, on the banks of the Ohio River, with Alison Krauss and Bill Monroe and Ralph Stanley and Emmylou Harris and Doyle Lawson and Peter Rowan. Allison Krauss (who is from my hometown, and who was just getting introduced around bluegrass circles at the time, at the age of 16, at the beginning of her great career) was kind enough to loan me her bass player and songwriter, Jon Pennell, also from the Champaign-Urbana area. He played with us before the IBMA in Owensboro. These are the facts, not the hysterical intentional or unintentional mis-readings by Smashville. Why would Smashville even make such allegations, when he admittedly doesn't know what the facts are. His stated objection is to his sense of "reeking," not facts. This is becoming a popularity contest, led by people engaged in personal attacks who are like pots calling the kettle black. I'll put out a challenge to Smashville - come right out and say that a fact in the article is wrong. Just say it. Don't use weasel words like "reeks" or "I almost question the veracity." If you want to allege that there are lies in the article, say so. Otherwise, drop your false implications, and be man enough or woman enough to admit that you are just blowing smoke, not facts.--Forrestergaz 21:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • In other words, the article is full of original research. I misread that he was "fictionalized" in a short story. I'm sorry, but it's such a weak claim to notability in a lead that I never thought to read it. Do you have any evidence to prove that? Tell me where I made a personal attack? I was talking about the article. And I already showed you a fact that was wrong - in 1990, the IBMA was not located in Nashville. There is no evidence whatsoever of notability. Supposed mentioning in a minor book 16 years ago with no evidence to back it up? Being "fictionalized" in another book (which - with no supporting sources - reeks of original research). All I can tell is that it seems like this Forrester guy is a non-notable lawyer that happens to have brushed shoulders with some famous people and has had some stuff published and somehow thinks he is famous for it. This is one of the more blatant self promotion pages I have seen. --SmashvilleBONK! 04:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Webhamster's comments are more appropriate and in keeping with Wikipedia standards, for the most part. I agree with him/her that the sources need enhancement. That has been agreed from the earliest days of this discussion. I disagree with Webhamster that there has been "berating" of editors. The truth is that the editors have used abusive language and foul language and made reckless accusations that they have totally failed to justify - they are just attacking without foundation, because they are annoyed. You will notice that I have made no effort to call in a bunch of comments to say Keep Keep Keep, because Wikipedia says we are not supposed to do that. However, it would be very interesting to be a NZ fly on the wall and see what off-page conversations have taken place between say, IvoShandor and Kranar or whatever his name is. This is taking on all the hallmarks of a lynching, not a discussion. Where Webhamster strays from logic is his suggestion that "money" is at issue here - why would he/she say something like that? It's totally unfounded, it is just an innuendo and (yes) another personal attack that is devoid of fact. It just boggles the mind why people say such things. Why don't they focus on the facts. It is fair game to say the sources need enhancing. It is fair game to make the criticism that the edit on the Illinois project tag was self promoting. I accept those criticisms. But why go on to say false things? And when I respond and point out that those things are false, and defamatory, do the people apologize (as I have done, for my errors)? No - they engage in still more name-calling and innuendo. It is totally bizarre. Below is another example, which was sent to my user site. --Forrestergaz 21:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly stating an opinion, and making clear that it is an opinion and not a statement of fact is, quite simply, not defamation, but then you knew that didn't you? To clarify my logic as you seem to be attempting non-understanding. You're an author, you're a musician, right? Musicians and authors have to promote themselves so that their work makes money, right? My opinion is that you are promoting yourself on Wikipedia as part of that process. If you don't understand that simple logic then I would have to accuse you of deliberate obtuseness. ---- WebHamster 21:18, 8 November 2007 (UT
  • Comment - this came into my user site this morning (New Zealand time) - I quote: "I blocked your IP address for a month for a strongly implied legal threat. If the address changes, you would be wise not to repeat the same threats with your account.--chaser - t 20:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)" This is absolutely incredible. If you will read my comment above which provoked this response, I made it absolutely clear that I was not making a legal threat. Here are my exact words from above: Now don't go saying I'm making a threat or a personal attack, because I'm not - I'm just saying that some of the attacks above are actionable in court, which they are, and the people who are making them anonymously should realize that their identities are readily discernible should anyone (and I emphasize, not me) decide to sue them for making such defamatory statements about Wikipedia contributors. It is not a threat to say that some of the remarks made in this discussion have been defamatory - it is a simple statement of fact. It is not a threat to ask people who make false and defamatory statements to withdraw them and to apologize - it is a request. But once again, what can you do when commentators over and over again mischaracterize facts and mis-represent statements? What can you do?? --Forrestergaz 21:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To IvoShandor - Where I come from, "Crap" means "Shit" - but maybe it's different in your part of Illinois. Where I come from, "faked" means "deceived," but maybe it has a different meaning in DeKalb. Where I come from, ridiculing an excellent publisher like Dufour is a slur, but perhaps you meant something different. Don't worry, Ivo - You will win this, and I will get deleted, and you can feel vindicated. I've known people like you all my life. They slur, they deceive, and then they blame other people when they refuse to accept it lying down. And the judges are always on their side. That's how they got to be judges. What have you ever done for American Indians? What have you ever done to stop murderous wars? What 30 musical compositions of yours have been recorded? What awards have you won? What novels have you had published? What poems have you written and published? I get the impression that name-calling and foul language is how you get your amusement.
  • Comment To WebHamster - You have made two new comments above. Here is a response: (a) Calling a person a liar, stating that they have faked facts, is defamatory. But then you knew that. Comments to that effect have fueled this discussion on the part of some wonderfully mean-spirited people. (b) It is your "opinion" that the smell of money is behind the article in question - upon what facts do you base that opinion? You didn't couch it as an "opinion" in your original comment, but rather as a snide innuendo. If you have no facts to back up such a slur, then you shouldn't say such things. There is no money in this. And it is probably fair to say that every single article about a living person, or nearly every single article about a living person, has had some element of self-aggrandizement about it. So what? Is it a matter of degree? Where do you draw the line? Ruhrfisch (above) had it about right - if the article is about walking a dog, it does not belong in Wikipedia. If an article is about (a) publishing novels & poems, (b) winning national awards, (c) successful legislation and litigation reversing generations of racism, etc., then the question moves to sources. In short answer - the article is not motivated by money, and it is wrong of you to suggest otherwise. If you have facts to the contrary, please bring them to the table.--Forrestergaz 22:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, it seems we're onto the "have you stopped beating your wife?" tactics now. My opinion is that there is, at worst, money at the bottom of this, at best it's personal pride. Either way it's COI and you should recuse yourself from this discussion. And just to clarify, it's not a statement of fact, it's an opinion based on interpolation. I may be right, I may be wrong. I just call 'em as I see 'em. Incidentally my comments were solely relative to my comments and your description of defamation, I don't deign to speak for others, I only speak for myself. PS, in my part of the world "crap" is just a mild epithet. ---- WebHamster 22:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Ivo - Apology and explanation accepted, with thanks. To everyone else - bring it on. Believe me, I have had uphill battles (on behalf of others, I might emphasize, not on my own behalf) that make this look like a roll in the hay with Aunt Sally. I know you'll win this. It's ok. Say, in the spirit of love, below is a poem that is offered to all of the commentators to this discussion, for the pure joy of it. If you want to know the truth, I do love you all. Here it is but the lines don't come out right in this particular format):

Unrequited

God of my beginnings, gates, and doorways,/ even then you ciphered right from wrong,/ and you were legion. You saw that/ I was good. You saw that I was good./

I lay with you in intimate communion till you rested./ Male and female, I lay with you in intimate communion./ On second coming, you breathed the only life you knew/ into my waiting face./

In lucid intervals, you spoke incongruously of trees,/ trees forbidden, learning trees,/ shattering your underworlds./

My lover, flesh of miscreated flesh,/ slipped a secret seed into her secret self./ I dreamt that she and I would be as gods/ and never die. We clothed ourselves/

in coats of fur, my love and I – / you cursed the ground we walked upon./ And I, still perfect in your images,/ returned to you your mystic love. --Forrestergaz 22:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little too sentimental for my tastes. --David Shankbone 23:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now we're getting somewhere. The issue of deletion is all but decided, anyway, and I am accustomed to accepting the decision of the referee with equanimity. I really like Shankbone's comment - it's spot on. "User:I do not exist" regards the poetry as awful, and that most assuredly is a valid commentary. Other might think it's ok; in any event, we are now having a more enjoyable discussion than anything that preceded, which blurred fact with opinion with name-calling - Shankbone and "I do not exist" are addressing something where subjective impressions are much more relevant than "facts," which are essentially non-existent when describing how a poem appeals or doesn't appeal. Good old WebHamster. Good old "I do not exist." Good old Shankbone. Actually, I wish you guys were in New Zealand. We could have a beer at the local pub. I must say that these discussions, all of the ones above, have provided some of the most fun I've had in quite a while. Thanks guys.--Forrestergaz 23:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nah, it's cool, "I do not exist." And while I've directed everybody in the world to Shankbone's user site (see the next comment below), I must say that yours is pretty fucking good too. Congrats.--Forrestergaz 00:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey everybody - check out Shankbone's user site - he is doing some incredible cutting edge stuff. I'm not kidding. You owe it to yourselves to check this out. Good on ya, Dave!!--Forrestergaz 23:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi Fellow Commentators - It's Friday evening here in New Zealand, springtime heading into summer. I just played three sets of tennis at the Thorndon Tennis Club, the third oldest club in the world (after Wimbledon and something else). It's just a Vespa-ride down the hill from where I live, and I pass Katherine Mansfield's house on the way down, and it's beautiful, and she used to play on these very courts, one of the greatest short-story writers the world has ever known. I don't know if she had a decent backhand or not. Gee it's lovely here. Have any of you ever been to New Zealand? Wellington, the capital city, is especially great, hills surrounding the harbour, a sort of postage-stamp San Francisco without San Francisco's problems. This is one of the finest cities in the world. Everything is coming into perspective. I got an email from Illinois today advising that both my parents are dying, slowly but surely, in a nursing home in Central Illinois. The connection back to Katherine Mansfield, the mutability all around, the fact that this place is sitting on one of the world's most highly-strung tectonic plates waiting for a huge earthquake that will destroy the city at a moment's notice. It doesn't matter if you succeed in deleting my article, as I'm sure you will. I don't really even know why I bothered. I should have just emailed my contributors & supporters and reminded them that I am nobody. I don't think I'll bother to re-submit once the deletion goes through. I'll just keep writing my lousy poems and playing my silly bluegrass songs, and enjoying Wellington and my family, and counting my blessings. I can't complain. From a more long-term angle, you guys have done me a favour. I just wish America wasn't over there in Iraq killing innocent people on the basis of all the lies, lie after lie after lie, told by the Bush administration. One great thing about being in NZ is that not a single cent of my taxation dollars is going to support those murderers, Bush, Cheney, Rice, et al. I know that not all Americans support this. But nobody's really doing much about it either, and our poor boys and girls from the inner cities and the reservations keep dying for these silver-spoon pricks, and almost half of the American public still supports it, no matter what the polls say. Who is accepting responsibiity for these mass murders? Where is the sense of horror?--222.155.133.222 07:39, 9 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gary_Forrester&oldid=1137871261"