Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Sam Vaknin: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:53, 9 February 2006 edit24.2.207.183 (talk) →[]← Previous edit Revision as of 02:01, 9 February 2006 edit undoMonicasdude (talk | contribs)3,505 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 20: Line 20:
*'''Delete'''. Zeraeph is absolutely right in his assertions. Vaknin has been a known entity for years to just about anyone who's ever been part of any online site even slightly related to psychological issues. But that's not a very large community overall. And for the record, the number of '''unique''' Google hits he gets . --] 21:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete'''. Zeraeph is absolutely right in his assertions. Vaknin has been a known entity for years to just about anyone who's ever been part of any online site even slightly related to psychological issues. But that's not a very large community overall. And for the record, the number of '''unique''' Google hits he gets . --] 21:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
* '''Comment''': If his PhD. gets referenced in his article, I want my degree-mill D.D. referenced in mine ... {{User:Adrian/zap}} 23:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC) * '''Comment''': If his PhD. gets referenced in his article, I want my degree-mill D.D. referenced in mine ... {{User:Adrian/zap}} 23:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
* '''Comment'''. Most of the delete votes seem to be based on the idea that the subject doesn't deserve to be notable. That's not an encyclopedic criterion. If applied evenly, next up on the deletion list should be Paris Hilton, Ann Coulter, a fistful of serial killers, and most of the US Congress. Informally, the real "notability" criterion here ought to be "Is this a person who someone might reasonably want more information on, and look up in Misplaced Pages?" By that standard, it doesn't matter how much of the subject's prominence comes from self-promotion, or whether the number of unique Google hits out of the 150,000+ is 3, 300, 3000, or 149,999. If somebody rummaging around the web can find him in 150,000 places, that's the relevant number for assessing notability. ] 01:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC) * '''Comment'''. Most of the delete votes seem to be based on the idea that the subject doesn't deserve to be notable. That's not an encyclopedic criterion. If applied evenly, next up on the deletion list should be Paris Hilton, Ann Coulter, a fistful of serial killers, and most of the US Congress. Informally, the real "notability" criterion here ought to be "Is this a person who someone might reasonably want more information on, and look up in Misplaced Pages?" By that standard, it doesn't matter how much of the subject's prominence comes from self-promotion, or whether the number of unique Google hits out of the 150,000+ is 3, 300, 3000, or 149,999. If somebody rummaging around the web can find him in 150,000 places, that's the relevant number for assessing notability. ] 02:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:01, 9 February 2006

Sam Vaknin

A superfluous vanity page created by a user currently involved in attacking Misplaced Pages in the online Press see: http://globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=1590&cid=1&sid=19 --Zeraeph 18:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Adam 18:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, may satisfy WP:BIO as an author; I'd need to see some sales figures to determine that. Otherwise a clear delete as non-notable. Pretty funny that someone who attacks Misplaced Pages's value would be such a frequent contributor though. It's also a bit suspicious how close his userpage bio is to the text in this article... --Isotope23 18:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I can't believe that just because one of his columns involves Misplaced Pages it's given a separate section. How is it more notable than any other column he's written?! This is the kind of self fetishisation that Misplaced Pages doesn't need, I'm sure that if he had published a critique of Britannica, it'd be absolutely ignored. Anyway, this isn't a vote from me, he has a phd, so I'm guessing he's published some books. You'd have to examine them a bit more for an informed decision. - Hahnchen 18:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Obvious Keep. Currently published author with relatively high Amazon sales rating, extensive editorial reviews , and well over 150,000 pertinent Google hits. Hard to see this as anything but a bad faith nomination. Misplaced Pages is not censored to eliminate mention of its critics. Monicasdude 19:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment
  1. The PHD was purchased from a recognised degree mill (Pacific Western University).
  2. The google hits are the result of years of deliberate self promotion and search engine manipulation.
  3. Is there any evidence, apart from his own assertion, for the Amazon Sales figures?
  4. I know, in one sense, the article (that really IS more a blatant attack than a critique) shouldn't matter, but it really is extreme, and is open to charges of being some kind of "reaction" to
  5. The "reviews" are largely the work of two people using several identities, and if you read them, rather obviously so
  6. "Bad Faith"? Can't argue with that, but trust me, he EARNED it.

--Zeraeph 19:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Response. My reference to the Amazon sale ranking is based on the Amazon pages, not on anything the author may have said. And however fake the customer reviews at Amazon may be, the "editorial reviews" are, according to Amazon, selected by Amazon itself from outside sources, not user submitted. 24.2.207.183 01:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Self-promotion. He's got a user page, that's enough. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The frequent contributions to Misplaced Pages and simultaneous attacks against Misplaced Pages, made by Sam Vakin, are simply a presentation of NPD in action. SAM BE GONE... Delete, delete, delete. senihele 21:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Zeraeph is absolutely right in his assertions. Vaknin has been a known entity for years to just about anyone who's ever been part of any online site even slightly related to psychological issues. But that's not a very large community overall. And for the record, the number of unique Google hits he gets is only 386. --Aaron 21:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: If his PhD. gets referenced in his article, I want my degree-mill D.D. referenced in mine ... User:Adrian/zap 23:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Most of the delete votes seem to be based on the idea that the subject doesn't deserve to be notable. That's not an encyclopedic criterion. If applied evenly, next up on the deletion list should be Paris Hilton, Ann Coulter, a fistful of serial killers, and most of the US Congress. Informally, the real "notability" criterion here ought to be "Is this a person who someone might reasonably want more information on, and look up in Misplaced Pages?" By that standard, it doesn't matter how much of the subject's prominence comes from self-promotion, or whether the number of unique Google hits out of the 150,000+ is 3, 300, 3000, or 149,999. If somebody rummaging around the web can find him in 150,000 places, that's the relevant number for assessing notability. Monicasdude 02:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)