Kenneth Dickson, 50 sources, but no notability Options

[HRIP7]

Interesting AfD.

Views?

[Ottava]

Here are the sources:

* The Riverside Press-Enterprise (north of San Diego/next county)
* The Press-Enterprise (same as Riverside Press-Enterprise apparently)
* The Valley News (San Diego county)
* The San Diego Union-Tribune (San Diego)
* North County Times (north of San Diego/same county)
* East County Magazine (San Diego county)
* Emporia Gazette (Emporia, Kansas) - minor use and about father

This search provides no real new sources.

Now, I must say, San Diego county does have a population of 3,222,466. That is larger than some states. Now, the Riverside press is from Riverside County, with a population of 2,073,571.

That means 5.2 million people. Just with San Diego alone, it should be enough that the "local" papers are proof of notability. It is, according to Wikipedia: "the ninth largest city in the United States, second-largest city in California and 46th largest city in the Americas"


I did think this comment was stupid:

Minnowtaur is right: he is no more notable than "virtually every small-town alderman, every high school quarterback or point guard, every owner of a local business, every Rotary Club president."

Outside of fantasy land, not many people appear in the newspaper that often, especially small-town alderman. Furthermore, being notable among San Diego and a neighboring county would be far different than being a "small-town alderman".

[ulsterman]

Interesting AfD.

Views?

It's perfectly obvious that he meets WP standards of notability. (He's had loads of coverage in non-trivial places.) Whether those standards make sense is another question, of course. Still, notable doesn't necessarily mean famous. There are plenty of worthy people who "deserve" (if that's the right word) a WP article who will never ever get onto "I'm a celebrity, get me out of here" or whatever.

[HRIP7]

Interesting AfD.

Views?

It's perfectly obvious that he meets WP standards of notability. (He's had loads of coverage in non-trivial places.) Whether those standards make sense is another question, of course. Still, notable doesn't necessarily mean famous. There are plenty of worthy people who "deserve" (if that's the right word) a WP article who will never ever get onto "I'm a celebrity, get me out of here" or whatever.

Deleted by John Vandenberg, presumably per WP:MASK.

[taiwopanfob]

Deleted by John Vandenberg, presumably per WP:MASK.

Could not a similar argument be made for the recent 2010 Central Canada earthquake? Authored by someone who should know better, over-referenced, predominately local mainstream media sources whose coverage is little more than water-cooler babble writ large, intense wikification, etc?

[ulsterman]

Deleted by John Vandenberg, presumably per WP:MASK.

WP:MASK is a sensationally "good" policy. By "good" I mean that it succeeds in giving admins significantly greater power to use and (not that we'd ever accuse Mr Vandenberg of such a thing) abuse. In a nutshell, it says "even if an aticle passes every possible criteria of notability, WP:RS, etc. it can still be deleted if someone doesn't like it".

[A Horse With No Name]

Deleted by John Vandenberg, presumably per WP:MASK.

Could not a similar argument be made for the recent 2010 Central Canada earthquake? Authored by someone who should know better, over-referenced, predominately local mainstream media sources whose coverage is little more than water-cooler babble writ large, intense wikification, etc?

To be frank (as opposed to being Frank, which is silly since we already have one - or One, in this case), WP:MASK could be used to delete about 98% of Wikipedia's content. Which, of course, would put the ARS out of business and leave the site with nothing except a bunch of teenage admins blocking naughty IPs.

[HRIP7]

Deleted by John Vandenberg, presumably per WP:MASK.

WP:MASK is a sensationally "good" policy. By "good" I mean that it succeeds in giving admins significantly greater power to use and (not that we'd ever accuse Mr Vandenberg of such a thing) abuse. In a nutshell, it says "even if an aticle passes every possible criteria of notability, WP:RS, etc. it can still be deleted if someone doesn't like it".

WP:MASK is not policy, but an essay. Some essays like WP:COATRACK acquire broad support and an almost policy-like standing, but most others sink without a trace. Time will tell what will happen to this one; it is still quite young.

Personally I think WP:MASK has something useful to say, but yes, it is potentially a very e--l--a--s--t--i--c concept.

[milowent]

Ken Dickson was one of those cases where someone has been cited in the local press a ton of times but he's done nothing of importance. Even I could not bring myself to vote keep as a rabid inclusionist. The article was a case of extreme puffery, and I was surprised to learn that its flowery lead sprung into the existence at the very first edit of its creation by Cirt. E.g., The 2nd sentence of the lead was about how Mr. Dickson learned his virtues from his Dad or something like that. Why write it like that? I have no idea.

I tried to rewrite the lead so one could see why he might be notable instead of it being four paragraphs of baloney. That's when I realized there was nothing to write. Essentially the guy is/was a member of the local school board and for one term its chair, and then was a failed candidate in the Republican primary for the local California Senate district, I believe. (He lost the primary earlier this month.) Cirt, who edits at superhuman speeds, was reverting my work lightning fast without discussion outside the edit summary. So I made a quick edit summary that the lead "SUCKS BALLS" to get his goddamn attention. Of course then he complains and drags me to the BLP noticeboard to ask whether BLP applies to edit summaries. Cirt also believed that the article needed to have a large four paragraph introduction because that's what Feature Articles have, though I noted that some things should never be Featured because then the word Feature will mean nothing. Some wikipedia entries deserve to be two paragraphs.

Of course, Ken Dickson is the same AFD where Herostratus mouthed off about the guy's lack of notability, which directly led to his dramafest recall RFA now in progress.

I would not have objected to the article being kept, but it needed an extreme puffery makeover. No intention of bashing Cirt in my post, I have come to enjoy his bot like posts on talk pages, we just disagreed strongly on this.

This post has been edited by milowent:

[EricBarbour]

I tried to rewrite the lead so one could see why he might be notable instead of it being four paragraphs of baloney. That's when I realized there was nothing to write. Essentially the guy is/was a member of the local school board and for one term its chair, and then was a failed candidate in the Republican primary for the local California Senate district, I believe. (He lost the primary earlier this month.) Cirt, who edits at superhuman speeds, was reverting my work lightning fast without discussion outside the edit summary. So I made a quick edit summary that the lead "SUCKS BALLS" to get his goddamn attention. Of course then he complains and drags me to the BLP noticeboard to ask whether BLP applies to edit summaries. Cirt also believed that the article needed to have a large four paragraph introduction because that's what Feature Articles have, though I noted that some things should never be Featured because then the word Feature will mean nothing. Some wikipedia entries deserve to be two paragraphs.

Of course, Ken Dickson is the same AFD where Herostratus mouthed off about the guy's lack of notability, which directly led to his dramafest recall RFA now in progress.

Perhaps I'm off-base, but seeing this makes me wonder if Cirt is being paid to write such crap BLPs.
Or is he in fact Ken Dickson himself, in real life? Or a friend or relative? Whatever, Cirt is still Cirt---
smug, mechanical, hyperactive, and far from being the best of WP's admin corps.

I'm still wondering if he's actually an AI program. "Sir....are you human?"

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[milowent]

Perhaps I'm off-base, but seeing this makes me wonder if Cirt is being paid to write such crap BLPs.

that idle thought occurred to me but i really have nothing to back up any such speculation.

[Somey]

that idle thought occurred to me but i really have nothing to back up any such speculation.

You could start here... This has been suggested before, and if it keeps up, we're going to have to give him his own subforum. (Or is User:Cirt female? We never did figure that one out, as I recall.)

I've actually defended Cirt to some extent in the past, but IMO the Dickson article was the most objectionable thing he (or she) ever did, putting aside the issue of whether or not Dickson himself wanted (or paid for?) the article to be written and posted. With that gone, I'd have to say that Cirt isn't really all that bad anymore, unless you're a Scientologist of course. (Though it's probably best not to go into too much detail on that score.)

[Moulton]

It's probably best not to go into too much detail on that score.

Are you trying to earn a point by tempting me to write another song parody?

[Jagärdu]

I'd have to say that Cirt isn't really all that bad anymore ...

Depends on how you look at it. I think someone who has the skill to mask non-notable subjects and the social capital to usually get away with it, like present day Cirt is much more damaging to the project than a known POV warrior like Smee (former Cirt). The masking essay might as well have been written about Cirt, btw -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MASK.

Regarding Dickson specifically it should be noted that he ran in an election this June. Cirt started editing the page in the fall, probably shortly before or after he announced his candidacy. I highly doubt that Dickson is Cirt or that Cirt is simply a supporter of his. S/he has been beautifying (though not fluffing up ... yet) the entry for a Democratic congressional candidate of late -- Rob Miller of SC. I doubt that a Dickson supporter would also support Miller ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Miller_(S...ina_politician)

I almost forgot. Cirt is particularly good at advertising books. Often this is done within his/her POV areas, but check this recent gem out -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Gaga:_Queen_of_Pop. Consider for a moment what types of subjects s/he puts this kind of meticulous editing into, outside of the Scientology/EST/cult area s/he clearly cares personally about. I guarantee you the articles you will find relate to people or a products that have something to gain from PR and not a general topic of interest.

This post has been edited by Jagärdu:

[NuclearWarfare]

Hi there. Welcome to WR.

Who are you?

[Jagärdu]

Hi there. Welcome to WR.

Who are you?

Thanks for the welcome. I'm a newly registered user of Wikipedia Review. In case you're wondering whether to use masculine or feminine pronouns I'm male. Do you have any comments on the discussion in the thread? I'd love to hear your take.

[Zoloft]

Hi there. Welcome to WR.

Who are you?

<snip>I'm a newly registered user of Wikipedia Review.</snip>

And apparently a paid-up lifetime member of the Tautology Club.
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)
Welcome.

[Milton Roe]

that idle thought occurred to me but i really have nothing to back up any such speculation.

You could start here... This has been suggested before, and if it keeps up, we're going to have to give him his own subforum. (Or is User:Cirt female? We never did figure that one out, as I recall.)

Well, Smeeglova is definitely a feminized Russian form of Smee. Hard to imagine your average manly-man using it. It would be sort of like putting on a brassiere and high heels, for a farce. Damn it's hard to spell brassiere.

[Somey]

Depends on how you look at it. I think someone who has the skill to mask non-notable subjects and the social capital to usually get away with it, like present day Cirt is much more damaging to the project than a known POV warrior like Smee (former Cirt). The masking essay might as well have been written about Cirt, btw -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MASK.

Well, I agree 100 percent, actually - but to me, "harmful to the project" is a good thing. As for WP:MASK, I applaud the fact that some of them are admitting that this goes on, but my personal view is that promoting products (particularly books, music, movies, etc.) on WP is largely harmless. The problems (IMO) occur when people like Cirt do things that might serve to lower "notability" standards for BLP's and articles about cause organizations, political entities, and to some extent commercial entities. If they ever implement an opt-out policy, I could easily see them lowering the BLP notability standards to include people like Dickson (who, presumably, wants the article about himself to be included), but not until then.

I guarantee you the articles you will find relate to people or a products that have something to gain from PR and not a general topic of interest.

What's frustrating is that this looks really obvious, but it's difficult to prove because the source of Cirt's (presumably contractual) paid-editing work isn't going to admit anything, and certainly Cirt won't either. In fact, if any of this is true, it leads me to believe that everyone involved in Cirt's promotional activities is female, including Cirt - if there were males involved, at least one of them would be bragging online about how they're getting away with it scot-free.

[Jagärdu]

Hi there. Welcome to WR.

Who are you?

<snip>I'm a newly registered user of Wikipedia Review.</snip>

And apparently a paid-up lifetime member of the Tautology Club.
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)
Welcome.

The only club worth belonging to. Out of curiosity is it standard practice to be met with the "who are you" greeting here? Would be good to know when I encounter new users. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)