Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Winters

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; userfication complete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Winters

Delete. Unverifiable/hoax/non-notable. — TheKMan^talk 05:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is verifiable through the website http://www.gonzofilms.net, which is ran by Michael Winters. Although the website appears unfinished, it is still under ownership by Michael Winters.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.15.246 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
See also: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gonzo Films. All links to that website lead to missing tripod pages. Can't verify any of the claims from that website. — TheKMan^talk 05:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is verifiable through the website http://www.gonzofilms.net, which is ran by me, Michael Winters. But, again, I am an aspiring filmmaker. This is my page. It is 100% factual. The reason why the Gonzo Films site is unfinished is because I have not yet updated it since working on "Kingdom Animalia" almost every minute of my free time.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spikejonze (talk • contribs) 06:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Wait, what information are you speaking of? — TheKMan^talk 06:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nvm. Just keep my biographical article, okay? Plz :)

You might want to inform Network Solutions that they are flagrantly breaking the law you speak of. [1].

Oh, and Delete as non-notable filmmaker. Oh no itsJamie 06:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TheKMan, they aren't breaking the law, you are since you have just posted all my personal information on this Wikipedia page. Now, please delete that Network Solutions link from your revision.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spikejonze (talk • contribs) 06:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- I didn't add that link (but it's still publicly available information). — TheKMan^talk 06:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I posted the link. There are no laws being broken here. Domain registration records are public information, period. Someone can just as easily put the domain name in the search box on Network Solutions front page and get the same result. (Here's a tip for you; remove you address or change it to a general one (remove street name, etc.) after you've registered a domain. As long as your registrar has your email, they don't care what's in that record. It's a fairly common practice. Oh no itsJamie 07:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
K, TheKMan. But, still keep my page? I mean, there's nothing objectable and I don't know what Ohnoitsjamie's problem is, but non-notable filmmaker? Who is he to decide this? And who cares if I'm not notable. Nothing on any "rules" page on Wikipedia said I had to be notable in my field to have a page.
Comment We are all participating in the decision process right now. That's how Wikipedia works. Oh no itsJamie 07:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, Wikipedia does have rules about notability. See WP:BIO and WP:Notability. Oh no itsJamie 07:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, Jamie, but yeah it's not going to be a fair discussion if I know the people against me say unfair comments like "Delete, non-notable filmmaker." That is rude and very, very unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikejonze (talk • contribs)

Comment Non-notable doesn't equal "bad"; it just means non-notable. That choice of words is quite typical in "articles for deletion" discussions. Oh no itsJamie 07:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Later. I'm going to bed. I'll see your (Fair) decision in the morning. But yeah, I'm 18. If you're going by notability here, how much notability do you expect me to have amassed in the film industry in a mere 18 years? Do you expect me to have made a masterpiece like "Citizen Kane" at age 18? Hopefully, you are more lenient than that in choosing relevant article topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikejonze (talk • contribs)

DrinicommentOk, I see this is becoming ugly, so I encourage both of you to take a break. Some friendly reminders:

AFD is not a vote, the result isn't decided by the number of votes on each side. It's decided by arguments, so everyone state their case, let other people ocmment, and wait until the period closes. Attacking or criticizing other people's opinions isn't going to change the procedure nor it's likely to help each cause.
Entries aren't "owned", so it's not "my biography" or "your biography". Spikejonze, if you wrote an entry about yourself, please go and read Wikipedia:Autobiography to see if this entry fits, and if not, make the changes to improve it so it fits the criteria and you'll have a strong case about this.

And now a friendly warning: If I see anybody else attacking or namecalling (or other things mentioned on WP:NPA) I'll have to put some blocks her and there. So guys, play it cool . -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO and WP:V, possibly fails WP:NOR as no third-party verifiable sources are cited. Also fails WP:NOT a crystal ball. Zunaid 07:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN. --Ezeu 08:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is not verified - Gonzo films is a personal website - as it says at Wikipedia:Verifiability, "Personal websites... are not acceptable as sources" -- Astrokey44|talk 09:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (and vote) - precedent suggests we could userfy this article, since Michael seems to be an editor on Wikipedia. BL kiss the lizard 11:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to User:Spikejonze as per BL Lacertae. Michael seems to be new to Wikipedia so someone should probably do it for him. —gorgan_almighty 15:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouldnt he at least give his consent before that is done? --Ezeu 15:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think a speedy userfication is in order if User:Spikejonze wants it. — TheKMan^talk 16:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn Hirudo 17:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please do a speedy userfication. I am new to wikipedia, so if someone could do this for me, please do it. Thanks.

Page has been userfied to User:Spikejonze. Don't hesitate to ask questions of your fellow Wikipedians via their talk pages. Good luck with your filmmaking. Oh no itsJamie 00:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support userfication, now delete as non-notable and unverifiable. Stifle 14:40, 18 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.