Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael S. Berliner

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 speedy keep - bad faith nomination. FCYTravis 04:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael S. Berliner[edit]

Berliner simply isn't notable. Unless there is far more information about him, being on the board of an organization and someone who compiles information, like he does, isn't worthy of an entry. --Jason Gastrich 03:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong delete. Per nom. --Jason Gastrich 03:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]

    • as nominator, your 'delete' vote is assumed.
  • Keep notable objectivist. I went along with Bilbo and the other guy because those really were vanity bios, but you have to stop nominating atheists just to make a WP:POINT to JustzisGuy. Ruby 04:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Completely notable. The article needs expansion and references, but that's no reason to delete it. Looks like we're getting into some sort of Christians vs. Atheists debate here and I'd suggest that people evaluate the articles based on their merits not on personal prejudices. Crunch 04:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At this point it is more important to STOP the tit-for-tat AfD war by discouraging them, never mind the merits of the articles at this time. Ruby 04:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I meant -- not directed at you... Crunch 04:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep; nomination made in bad faith. --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 04:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are obvious WP:POINT issues here but let's try to deal with each article on its own merits. In this case, reference and expand. Dlyons493 Talk 04:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable philosopher. -- Dragonfiend 05:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, bad faith AfD nomination, Berliner is widely known and notable. - WarriorScribe 05:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Come on... this Afd is downright silly. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 05:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Yet another bad faith nomination/WP:POINT violation from Gastrich. Guettarda 06:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep bad faith nomination. Mark K. Bilbo 06:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He looks notable. Although I find Ayn Rand's philosophy repellent I don't see what that has to do with anything. There's an article on Ben Klassen, as there should be, and his philosophical views are more universally seen as repellent.--T. Anthony 07:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and expand. Grandmasterka 10:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Only 14k google hits. Perhaps he has made important contributions to objectivism? Then the article should mention what they are. Yes, some of the Gastrich nomination are ridiculous, but this should not stop us from keeping an article that does not belong. --Pierremenard 13:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is 14k worth of hits make this article deletable? Arbustoo 01:51, 23 January 2006 (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/Michael_S._Berliner&oldid=1194629217"