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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 06:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page was up for deletion once before but I decided to list it again. The article seem to be a total vanity article. When discussing whether or not to delete the article before, the subject of the article, who is User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters was asked to refrain from editing the article. He has been unable to do so and has made almost weekly edits to it changing wordings, listing himself as in categories (such as philosopher) which he may or may not actually be qualified as. He did seem to appear in a few Google searches, but that's not very hard to do. I myself have published books, have taught classes, and have many of the same qualifications as this man seems to have, but I don't feel the need to glorify myself or make a completely vanity-like article. The fact that this user himself is the one who's done most of the workl on the article, and has made the majority of the edits, especially after being asked not to do so, is troubling to me and puts the reputation of wikipedia at stake. {See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Mertz/Archive for the previous deletion vote) --ScottyBoy900Q 15:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would urge editors to read Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies, which reads in part: Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more. (Note also that ScottyBoy900Q has recently nominated himself for administratorship: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ScottyBoy900Q).

My book on Addison-Wesley has sold about 3500 printed copies to-date (but has just gone to second printing in the last week), but has been downloaded approximately 70,000 times in its electronic version. The website gnosis.cx is essentially exclusively for archival publications of my articles first published in other places. It has received visits from approximately 750k distinct IP addresses (which only loosely correlates with eyeballs, of course). However, the original publishers, chiefly IBM developerWorks, O'Reilly ONLamp[1], and Intel's (now terribly unorganized) developer site, certainly receive more readers on first publication (of my articles specifically) than does my archival site. So in other words, my readership is approximately two orders of magnitude beyond the (admittedly minimal) recomendation WP provides for notability.

I took a look at Google Scholar for my name. It's a cool tool; I haven't really used it before. There seems to be a "DB Mertz" who is an ethologist, and is not me. But looking through the 67 basic hits, I see that 38 of them are really about me. Fewer than half of those concern any work for IBM. It appears that I have a number of citations and acknowledgement related to my philosophy work that I had not been aware of. Cool! See: [2]

Also of interest—at least to me—is Google Print. See: [3]. Interestingly, all of the 11 books that contain my name in their text are genuinely references to me. It's delightful to me (for vanity reasons) that books as diverse as Women's Health Solutions, Understandings of Russian Foreign Policy, Philosophy of Science and Its Discontents, Python Cookbook: 2nd Edition, Fear, Truth, Writing: From Paper Village to Electronic Community, and Sexual Investigations all mention me. Mostly just by way of brief acknowledgments or citations of a single paper; I'm certainly not claiming that any of those are significantly about me.

The basic "Google test" shows about 85k hits on my name, about 95% are to me rather than someone else sharing my name. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Google Scholar turns up some half-dozen hits (admittedly in IBM publications) so I don't feel it's total vanity although it is somewhat self-promotional. I too am disturbed by the edit pattern, but it did fairly clearly survive the previous Afd and the request there by Smoddy (Rabbit and pork)that Lulu not edit the page further can hardly be taken as binding. Dlyons493 Talk 16:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's popssible though people voted to keep under the assumption that request for him to not edit would be followed. --ScottyBoy900Q 16:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think so - all the votes were cast before that last-minute request went in. Just to be be clear though Slac did enourage no edits and finally Smoddy requested no edits! Dlyons493 Talk 17:21, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If Mertz was not a wikipedia contributor this would be a slam-dunk delete, there's no reason to come to a different conclusion because he is a wikipedian, jguk 16:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree with jguk. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz ^★ 18:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete did nothing of note.  Grue  19:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. This is just absurd (again). Yeah I'm the guy the article is about, and I've done a number of small edits on it, but the substantial content was written by our fine admin SlimVirgin (and contributions by other top-notch editors). But either way, "David Mertz" is both meaningfully discussed in a bunch of Wikipedia articles (on computer programming-ish topics), and read by hundreds of thousands of readers (a magnitude more than watch the minor porn actors with articles, or ever attended some high school with an article). I mean, 85,700 google results on "David Mertz" isn't an accident (about 95% are the right david mertz). Nor is the high Alexa rating on the site gnosis.cx where my articles get archived. Contrary to my "sworn enemy" Jguk, my contributions to Wikipedia are completely non-notable in this article, and that's why they are not mentioned. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just the fact that you're so dedicated to making sure the article stays seems to justify my claim that its for vanity. I have a degree in history...does that mean I should list myself amongst the most notable 20th century historians and create an article about myself...no! You just don't seem significant enough to warrant having your own article. The very idea that you edit it and keep editing it to me indicates its just for self promotion. If we made a page for every minor person who works in every occupation, we'd have so many rubbish articles. Where do we draw the line? --ScottyBoy900Q 17:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am too much biased to actually put forth my opinion on this matter, but I say, as an administrator, that this is by no means a speedy keep. I cannot see any way in which it is in bad faith. [[Sam Korn]] 17:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, let the voting run its course. --ScottyBoy900Q 17:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep clearly meets the criteria for notability and verifiability. Fawcett5 20:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Although this may sound fan-boyish and David has pointed the AfD request out to me, but I do find David Mertz to be notable, especially in programmer circles (3 hits on Slashdot on his name is notable in my book). He is a widely read, widely cited, widely published author. Then there is the Open Voting Consortium; David is the CTO and was recently nominated for the Open Source for Elections panel of the State of California, together with Bruce Perens. Now, if Bruce Perens came over to make some edits on his bio page, should we boot that article as well? --MJ^(☎|@|C) 20:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep. I don't think that articles on people should have to jump hrdles set higher than video-game characters, American villages, or pop singles; this article would in fact jump hurdles much higher than any of those, and (as Fawcett5 and others have commented) clearly meets the normal criteria for notability and verifiability. jguk says: "If Mertz was not a wikipedia contributor this would be a slam-dunk delete"; I don't actually understand the refernce (I think that it's to basketball, but that's the best I can do), though I understand its general meaning — and it's surely the other way round: if the subject weren't a Wikipedia contributor no-one would have thought to delete the article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He's published by a reputable publisher, among other things. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, passes the Cyrus Farivar test. Kappa 02:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mel Ettis. Xoloz 02:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - do you see how many citations there are on that? go try to find an article of similar length with that number of references. SECProto 03:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - change of vote from the last debate, for a few reasons - firstly, the points raised by nominator I by and large concur with, and secondly, I can affirm that I had a definite expectation (even if I did not phrase it as such) that Lulu would not edit the article. The fact that he has is, frankly, disappointing, and such practices are fairly clearly discouraged throughout Wikipedia. Jimbo manages to refrain from it, despite being professedly disappointed with the state of his article. In terms of notability, I last time was of the view that the balance of evidence brought to light favours it, but I'm less convinced given that there only seems to be work within an IBM context. Slac speak up! 03:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, votes is votes. But the guideline at Wikipedia:Autobiography is just: If you do so, please only add verifiable information and be especially careful to respect the neutral point of view. Noting objections or corrections on the talk page may be appropriate. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• NULL Jeff says this person is not notable. margit mueller merkey 03:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC) (Not a sockpuppet of merkey, was my wife, and she can vote). Gadugi 16:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC) I talked to my wife and she says withdraw her vote since I told her how to vote, so it probably should not count. Gadugi 22:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  To nuance this vote: Jeff Merkey is in dispute over the contents of his biography with the editors of the article, of whom Lulu is one (and so am I). He escalated this to a Request For Arbitration (now rejected, link is to a past version) and this vote is most likely retaliation. --MJ^(☎|@|C) 09:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete, even the 5k boundary is ridiculously low. --fvw* 13:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. paul klenk ^talk 16:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Google Scholar hits, sales and him being highly cited and referenced outside (and to a certain degree within) Wikipedia (also see reasoning of other keep voters). If his editing his own article is a problem you could try getting a binding decision on it, but published authors like him are quite notable enough for an entry. Disclosure: Lulu contacted me, but I don't remember any prior contact with him, so I think I'm still objective in the matter. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Mel Etitis, MacGyverMagic, and established Google Scholar hits. Hall Monitor 18:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article seems neutral and verifable enough. Disk space is cheap. Bryce 20:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vivian Darkbloom 21:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC) (account created Oct 10, all edits on that date were votes on AfD)[reply]
• Keep per Mel Etitis and others. Neier 22:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notable author; to my mind, meets WP:BIO, and any POV or vanity issue can be dealt with. MCB 00:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Particularly per SECProto. 172 | Talk 09:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the subject is clearly a sufficiently interesting character that not having an article on him might prove embarrassing later. On a purely personal basis, noting the style of opposition on the talk page, I'm not inclined to give in to non-verifiable slurs. If a certain user can justify their problem with the article (not with David/Lulu himself) with rather more substance and less whining I might be inclined to take it more seriously. —Phil | Talk 14:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you draggin' me into this as a deletionist? If the article can be cleaned-up, devanitized, and uncensored, I'd probably want to keep it. Davey's only cliam to notability is as a political activist, and it's censorship to keep removing references to his unsavory sociopolitical comments about Jews and Israel. Tanya! Ravine 19:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• keep factual and verifiable. Trollderella 15:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please this person is notable and we need to stop this systemic bias now Yuckfoo 15:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree that if he weren't a Wikipedia editor, this article would unquestionably be kept. Also, voting "delete because I don't like the edits he's made" makes very little sense. AfD isn't the place to dispute the content of an article. Go edit the article or its talk page. RSpeer 18:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - sufficiently notable to justify inclusion--User:AYArktos | Talk 21:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have no reason to doubt that this AfD was brought in good faith. However, while I had personally never heard of David Mertz, there is sufficient evidence of notability, through google searches, and online bookshop searches, etc. His book "usually ships within 24 hours" at Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk. (The more obscure titles have "usually ships within two months, but may not be available at all".) The book seems to be popular and to sell well. Obviously, it was against Wikipedia policy for Lulu to have started the article, but he explained in the first AfD that he was unaware of that policy at the time. If there are POV problems or factual errors, the article can be edited. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 22:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. David Mertz, how can you see you have only added "minor" edits to the page when not only did you start the page but continued adding until half the history is your edits? --Fir0002 07:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fir0002, do you have a rationale to delete the article? If you object to the content that David added to the article, take it to the talk page or edit the article. RSpeer 19:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I thought my question was pretty self explanatory, but to put it formally, I vote to delete because I belive it is a vanity article. --Fir0002 08:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As is noted in the article talk page (and the prior failed VfD), I did not write the article. I copies it from a bio at another wiki that discusses various computer people. Yeah, I performed the cut-and-paste, but not the composition. In any case, take a look at the edits: I made pretty many, but they're stuff like typos and wikification, overwhelmingly... nothing that even comes close to NPOV issues. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I certainly don't think that it should have been you who copyed the text to make an article on yourself. --Fir0002 08:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How is this comment even remotely relevant to the notability of the article subject? If an editor edited improperly, the proper mechanism is RfC. Of course, there is no prohition on autobiography editing if it meets NPOV; so the case is tenuous anyway. But even if true, it's irrelevant to an AfD. 71.208.214.195 20:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep based on substantiated non-trivial (though not major) notability. Edit pattern isn't directly relevant to whether we should keep the article. Merkey controversy isn't relevant to whether we should keep the article. Tanya R's conflict over things the subject said or wrote outside his area of notability isn't relevant to whether we should keep the article. Barno 19:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whaddya mean, "outside his area of notability"? He doesn't meet the criteria as an above-average academic or as an author. (That 70000 number he claims doesn't count; no-name bands have given away 250000 free downloads of albums that they couldn't sell 250 of.) If Lulu's notable, it's for his politics, and it's wrong to see the article get consored in that area. Tanya! Ravine 20:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for reasons I just said. There are more important committees in California then the one he's supposed to be appt'd to but their members don't get articles. Tanya! Ravine 20:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that Tany Ravine argues that all these utterly non-notable things about my alleged political beliefs (nothing I really believe, of course) ought to be in the article; but then argues the article should be deleted because those non-notable things might be included. (david mertz)

• Keep based on the qualifying publishing information and minor notability. The difference between Wikipedia and other encyclopedias is that we are not constrained by space and thus can include minor notables if they meet some basic criteria. This was on the fence of keep/weak keep for me, but ultimately I think it should stay. (el_amante) 19:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The subject and the article cannot be judged separately, and in this case, the article is clear self-promotion. I believe that the only reason we do not have a specific policy against editors working on their own articles is the clear unenforceability of such a policy. Chick Bowen 02:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How does this even remotely make sense?! If you think David Mertz is a bad person, add the text "David Mertz is an asshole" to the article (if you think such can meet WP:NPOV and WP:V). If you think Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters is a bad editor, create an RfC or the like. But how can either thing being even slightly relevant to the obvious notability of the article subject? 71.208.214.195 19:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Minor notability established. El_C 03:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. More google hits for David Mertz than many articles/bios on wikipedia. IMO, Lulu editing the article is, however, not ideal. Banes 10:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If not a wikipedian, this article would not even exist here. Fails 5K test. Gadugi 16:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC) Please don't call my wife a sockpuppet. In addition to being incorrect, it's also disrespectful. Gadugi 22:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The comment made above, that this vote is a retaliation against Lulu over a disputed biography, still stands. --MJ^(☎|@|C) 12:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

I see that Jeff's "wife" withdrew hisher vote above. So it looks perfectly proper now for Jeff to cast one delete vote; it's not for us to proclaim motives (as obvious as they are in this case). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I SEE that this self-serving article is the result of WP:AB all over the place. It's the ultimate in hipocrosy to revert edits in other articles under claims of WP:AB when this popinjay article dressed in the plumage of a peacock is paraded around on WP. This article is an eyesore on the internet and should be deleted. 67.137.28.187 19:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I ordered several of this authors books from Amazon and ohter sources, and they are so rife with credits to the work of others, I would suggest that only 10% of their content is by the author. The remaining 90% of their content appears to be blatant plagaurism from the work of others. Note Notable. Delete stands, and not on the basis of retaliation. 67.137.28.187 19:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, I've only published on book that can be obtained from Amazon. So I guess Jeff bought several copies of the same title just to make sure they all contained the same "plagurism [sic]". :-) (david mertz)

• Delete violation of WP:AB, vanity. First edit written by Lulu. More than half the edits are additional entries by Lulu and few of those to revert erroneous information.--MONGO 05:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete. Autobiography. I'm surprise that a person, with PhD training, think that it is okay to write an article of himself in wikipedia. It is clear violation of independence and nature of encyclopedia, and filled with conflict of interest. Keeping this article is an extreme risk to the credibility of wikipedia. So, the reviews we get will be "In wikipedia, some biography articles were written by the subjects themselves". Do you guys want this to happen? This is a speedy delete because the whole wikipedia project is at stake. Please read Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great. --Vsion 06:44, 15 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.