Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Mirabello

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Mirabello[edit]

Delete Original Autobiographic, wikified by others, still not notable. Has published three unnotable books, furthermore nothing worth mentioning at the level of importance for wikipedia. See also the discussion about one of his books at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Odin_Brotherhood for more discussion on this. Page about him from before has been deleted Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mirabello KimvdLinde 23:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Changed my obvious error --KimvdLinde 02:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP subject is mentioned in wikipedia by others, has notable published works yet is considered not important enough by a user happy to include a page on Drosophilidae, even though he states himself that nothing much is known about this subject, i quote "The knowledge of the phylogeny of this family is incomplete". 82.23.107.27 23:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
feel free nominate Drosophilidae for deletion. But we are not talking about me, but about the Mark Mirabello article. References to where he is mentioned are appreciated, did not find any that pointed at him when searching wikipedia --KimvdLinde 23:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject of article is, among other things, author of two nontrivial books published by non-vanity presses, one of which has five editions, indicating satisfaction of notability criterion for published authors. If publishing lousy books was grounds for deletion, let's start with the Jackie Collins' of the worls, and the guy who wrote the Da Vinci code nonsense. Monicasdude 23:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KimvdLinde you've edited your earlier thing. that's bad. i got told off for that you know. i've never heard of mark mirabello, but clearly having 3 books published is kind of a good thing and worthy of recognition. he appears to be a professor of some repute on at least two continents and is in need of inclusion as much as your remarkable collection of studies into flies. 82.23.107.27 23:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "subject is mentioned in wikipedia by others" - dubious - only mentioned in article on The Odin Brotherhood, book by Mark Mirabello, also up for deletion. 82.23.107.27 - your case is not helped by trolling KimvdLinde, and reference to Drosophilidae is completely irrelevant to this discussion. (You won't get far if you try to say that that article is a candidate for deletion). Please try to come up with a better rationale for keeping the Mirabello articles, rather than launching ad hominems. Monicasdude comment is pretty lame too - although I agree both authors mentioned are trash, they're read by tens of millions throughout the world, so are obviously notable. (No Vote as yet) Camillus (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, if KimvdLinde has read the books in question then I am happy to retract my comments but as I suspect she hasn't then surely her comments that the subject in question's works are not notable and nothing worth mentioning are, as you say of another user's comments (hypocrisy eh, gotta love it) pretty lame. Not having heard of something cannot possibly be a verifiable reason for deletion in a worldwide encyclopedia. You'd have to be an ubermensch of the highest variety to KNOW and be able to comment on the notability of everything in the world. Carry on though. 82.23.107.27 00:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC) (change of sex edit btw)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails to meet WP:BIO for professors. The books were published by what is likely a vanity press [1] and have low Amazon.com sales ranks. Peyna 00:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Peyna. --Kinu 00:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Peyna. Carlossuarez46 01:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the subject is not notable, I've got a whole list of other biographies and authors on wikipedia who should be purged as well. Book sales do not equal impact upon sub-cultures or their academic worth. If this entry ends up remaining, I will probably add to it later after doing further research, as it is relevant to a future article I am working on. HroptR 01:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I realize no one here probably cares, but the person who authored the Mark Mirabello entry Stege1 has commented at the talk page. To wit: Mark Mirabello did not write the entry as stated in the nomination for deletion. HroptR 01:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, my error. Remains nn. --KimvdLinde 02:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Monicasdude. Adrian Lamo ·· 03:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable professor. JohnnyCrabcakes
This was user's fifth edit. --Craig Stuntz 21:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep articles should not be deleted on the basis that a webspazzer has not heard of the subject AwagMoordown 11:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was user's first edit. --Craig Stuntz 21:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete few google hits, seems not notable. Elfguy 14:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Several arguments here are ad hominems directed at me (primarily by new editors), but whether I (or the new editors for that matter) have heard of the person is irrelavant. Arguments should be independent of that. The argument that there are other comparable articles is irrelevant (they might indeed qualify for deletion as Not Notable), inclusion in Wikipedia should be based on more objective criteria, as outlined in Wikipedia:Notability_(people). Based on the criteria as a professor, I should be able to find at least a substantial number of references to his work from other scholars, such as in Web-of-Science (zero hits) or google scholar (1 or 2 hits) or google itself (found one, missed maybe some, but likely less than 5 hits). Notability as a writer, even for a subculture (who especially interact at the web) should result in substantial mentioning of the author at the web beyond book reviews, sales lists etc and that is fairly limited. I surely believe he is a nice person (based on what people write about him and from his email), and that he is liked by his students and such, but that does not make someone of encyclopedic value in my opinion, who's main entry at the page is the courses that he teaches. --KimvdLinde 14:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The guy is clearly a respected and published academic, which is more than can be said for most of the cretins who moderate this site who apparently think a Transformers convention is notable. "Judge not a man to be non-notable lest he goeth awag in a bad way on your face, mother bitch" --BCFC Dan 18:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was user's first edit. --Craig Stuntz 21:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment JEEEZZUS are we really so neanderthalic on Wikipedia that we have to use words like Spazzer!? Nigger is not acceptable, Ho Tart Bitch or whatever are not acceptable, but its still acceptable to take the piss out of people with disabilities?! a very pissed off JCUK 18:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.152.156 (talk • contribs) [reply]
The word was "webspazzer" you benny. --BCFC Dan 21:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Sadly, the act or condition of having an exceptionally annoying fanbase hasn't made its way into CSD yet. I'm confident it's an oversight, however. Adrian Lamo ·· 21:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My reason for voting keep earlier was due to the fact that in order to become published, the professors work needs to have undergone peer review and as such this makes him notable within his field of work. For this to have happened 3 times adds weight to this argument. I do not see how google's failure to bring up references to an academic is relevent in this case. JohnnyCrabcakes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.125.1.112 (talk • contribs)
      • comment While that was unsigned, it was actually made by me, but I forgot to log in before makign the comment.JohnnyCrabcakes
    • Response. While I agree that Mirabello's publications make him Wikipedia-notable, his works, like The_Odin_Brotherhood, are issued by trade rather than academic publishers and were not peer-reviewed. Monicasdude 00:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dudes, seriously, he's a non-notable professor who writes non-notable books and none of the arguments for or against can distort those facts. Fails professor test and author test. The simultaneously hilarious and sickening newbie / sockpuppet / meatpuppet fest going on here, the total failure by more experienced users who are apparently independent of Mirabello and claim expertise in said field to show why any of this is notable or wikify the articles plus the huge amount of spidering these pages are currently getting (ka-ching!) leave me exactly where I started with the Odin Brotherhood. Strong Delete. If people want to nominate other articles just because something they have an interest in was deleted, go ahead and they too can be judged on their merits. Just because you think extreme ironing is nn but wouldn't be deleted is not a reason for keeping any other article, nominate it and see what happens. If people think it's more worthy than what you're into, that's just something you're going to have to deal with. ++Deiz 02:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Note that generally listing other articles for AfD, because someone listed your favorite article for AfD is considered a violation of WP:POINT. Peyna 03:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's true Peyna, y'all play nice and don't listen to everything uncle Deizio has to say... It has to be said that nominating Extreme Ironing for deletion just because an article about an obscure occult book / author was put on the block would be pretty spectacular. ++Deiz 04:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I have no intention of nominating anything I dislike for deletion. Its not my place to determine if Extreme ironing is meritorius, only I am using it as an example to illustrate the content on this site and how Mirabello is appropriate. User:Stege1
          • That's generally bad logic. Most of the time when someone says "Well page X exists, so why can't page Y?", page Y has never been nominated for AfD; OR is in no way analogous to page X, so it is an invalid comparison. Peyna 14:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From my little experience, this debate should purely be about this reference, the relevance or irrelevance of other articles is a separate isssue. This article is well written, informative and fully has a place on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not Google's little brother, who gives a damn if the author is not massively referenced on there? Google is a corporate whore, a behemoth of the internet which makes it's own rules. When people use the 'lack of google points' reason for requesting a delete they are striking at the very heart of what they are supposedly defending. Wikipedia is the anti-thesis of Google, and will in time slay it like Saint Dan slew the dragon. In the words of JFK, "ask not what Wikipedia can do for you; ask what you can do for Wikipedia" -- Ruth User:Daley_Lama — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.42.58 (talk • contribs)
      • I agree with Daley_Lama, I won't bring in any outside references. Note: I recently edited the page with More info on Mirabello, apparently he is also a Kentucky Colonel. A distint honor given by the governor of the commonwealth of Ky. Other notable recipients are John Paul II, John Glenn, and Dave Thomas. stege1
Delete. Not enough information available on Mirabello to write an NPOV article. His historical claims strike me as highly questionable, but I can't find a critical appraisal of them online (other than Wikipedia's), or indeed, any appraisal by someone with relevant academic qualifications. Also, his reputation as an academic does not serve to shore up his reputation as a writer of works of "dark horror fiction" with "hardcore, X-rated content." I would support an article on Mirabello if either A) his historical theories attracted attention within the academic community, or B) he became well-known for his fiction. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 19:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His book “The Odin Brotherhood” is relevant to many topics. Norse mythology and neo-paganism, secret societies, Nazi occultism (which is heavily influenced by Nordic culture) and cults are sources of scholarly attention around the world. The articles on Mark Mirabello and his book help contribute to Wikipedias ability to have information on the wide spectrum human affaires.— Preceding unsigned comment added by zoddoom (talk • contribs) (user's first edit)HroptR 21:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "The Odin Brotherhood" is well known by followers of Odinism. The man has appeared on odinist programs and given lectures. If he appears to be too obscure, this may be a result of the obscurity of Odinism (at least the present incarnation). However, make no mistake that he is well known and respected for his work on the subject. - Dunglemagne (user's first edit)HroptR 21:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per peyna Ruby 22:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete nn professor. mikka (t) 03:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to new editors[edit]

There appears to be many editors who have edited anonymously or have created a username solely to vote on this issue. While we appreciate your concern and passion about this issue, unfortunately the input of new users does not have much weight in these matters, because you are not yet a contributing member of Wikipedia.

Also, it is expressly against Wikipedia policy to create more than one user account to affect the outcomes of deletion discussion or AfD. This is called sock puppetry. This practice is highly frowned upon by your fellow Wikipedia editors and is expressly discouraged by Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines.

Furthermore, every computer on the internet has a unique IP address, which in most instances, can identify the specific computer and the physical location used to make edits. If numerous editors in a vote all have the same IP address, this is evidence of sock puppetry, and your votes will not be counted. You could also be blocked from editing in the future. You are not completely anonymous!

From Wikipedia:Sock puppetry:

The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.

I encourage you to stick around Wikipedia and contribute to the project, regardless of the outcome of this vote. - HroptR 22:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note I should add that some of the votes considered sock puppets are from Shawnee State University.I do not know much about IP address but I think since all 4,000 students are on the same network at the school, and there are only so many computers on campus, some may log in at different times from the same terminal. I ask that you consider this. stege1

Note I would like to add that I am neither a sockpuppet or a student of Shawnee State University, if the above user would like to check my IP address he/she will find that I am resident in Europe at the moment. I stand by every point that I made.

Regards

Ruth User:Daley_Lama


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/Mark_Mirabello&oldid=1142612153"