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 was keep. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tilman Hausherr

[edit]

Tilman Hausherr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Note.

AFD started: 20 March 2007

Nomination statement

This article previously survived 2 AFDs. In both the first AFD, and the 2nd AFD - the result was Keep. Recently, a discussion was brought up to merge the entire article into the article Opposition to cults and new religious movements. The discussion is at Talk:Opposition to cults and new religious movements. This AFD will serve to formally discuss the appropriateness or lack thereof of any such "Merge." Smee 07:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on nom statement

Comment on nom statement - While the stated purpose of this AfD as a discussion of a merge is decidedly odd and may be misuse of the AfD process, I think that there is sufficient question as to the notability of the subject to warrant this AfD, irrespective of the outcome of previous AfDs. It is odd that an AfD is being brought by a nom that thinks the article should be kept and, again, I wonder if it is a misuse of the process. It might be more appropriate if this AfD were resubmitted by an editor that feels that the article should be deleted and perhaps this AfD should be "shelved" pending such a submittal. --Justanother 17:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: - No, actually it is a used practice to send an article you think is notable to AFD, in order to "test" its notability as a standalone article. This is most certainly appropriate, specifically because "Merge" discussions commonly take place within AFD discussions. Smee 18:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It was indeed a clever move and I support it. If the article survives this AfD, I hope that it will stop similar moves once and for all. --Tilman 18:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the intention - to have a referendum once and for all on whether to Keep, or Merge or Delete the article in question... Smee 18:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

AFD discussion

COMMENT: -- As nom, I will not "vote" a particular sentiment, though I do think the subject is notable and the article is certainly adequately sourced with reputable secondary sourced citations. However I will state that this action of the merge discussion at Talk:Opposition to cults and new religious movements, and the placing of the merge tags at the 2 associated articles and the constant re-adding of them amounts to a revenge/harassment tactic, as delineated by the subject of the article, User:Tilman. Smee 07:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep subject is notable for other things than cult opposition ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 10:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT Keep Since Tilman and I have worked/are working together this isn't a formal vote, even though an AfD isn't supposed to be a "vote" anyway. If Tilman Hausherr were only a critic of Scientology, I'd agree with the merge proposal. After all, he would belong in such a category if that was all that could be known for. In my opinion his software development and the coverage it has received clearly makes him notable for more than being a Scientology critic.
Hausherr's Xenu's Link Sleuth software was called the "fastest link-checking software" by PC Magazine.
To be fair though, since he did include the name "Xenu's" I understand why some Scientologists may feel he is a full time critic. However such people are most likely forgetting that the bulk of time spent on the application involves programming/coding, the name is almost an afterthought. (Which means if a person spends 100 hours developing a program, and then takes two seconds to call it the no FAT chicks file manager, said person could be called insensitive but would have to be called a developer. Especially if the software works.) Anynobody 10:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he is notable in the anti-cult world, and the article is adequately sourced from third party publications. I'd argue that the article is keepable on this basis alone, irrespective of the notability of Hausherr's software. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- no new arguments that weren't already examined and rejected in the first two AfDs, which frankly makes this seem quite like an attempt to get around the results of the first two AfDs. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Why would you propose a deletion (AFD) to settle a merge debate. Wouldn't a merge be prefereable to a deletion? I still support a merge with a redirect from Tilman to Opposition to cults. I am not very familiar with AFDs. I don't know what this means for the merge, but in order to be fair go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Opposition_to_cults_and_new_religious_movements#Tilman_Hausherr_merge John196920022001 15:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- User:John196920022001, if you feel that the article should be merged, then you should change your sentiment from "Keep" to "Merge." Smee 21:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

OK, thanks. John196920022001 16:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, wasn't sure if you knew you could do that... Smee 16:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - Non-notable critic of Scientology with a couple of minor mentions; also he has a website and a lawyer sent him a letter (dime a dozen). Non-notable developer of one bit of non-notable software that got a magazine mention five years ago (again both are dime a dozen). The non-notability of Xenu's Link Sleuth is abundantly pointed out by the fact that, other than the five-year old magazine mention, the main "source" to establish notability is of the sort; "someone actually used it". --Justanother 16:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was likely featured in PC-Welt magazine sometime in fall 2006, since they asked me for permission. Your "five years ago" theory is because that was all you could find. I suggest you look further, and also at google print. [1] --Tilman 21:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Tilman added a Google Books search to his existing comment so I will speak to that) Add Xenu to the search as in Xenu+"Link Sleuth" and you get five hits [2]. These sorts of books list tons of programs for web design and maintenance; often including a CD chock full of freeware and shareware. Not particularly notable. --Justanother 21:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are different ways to write "Xenu's", that is why. Some don't write His name at all: [3]. These books mention the shareware that is relevant, i.e. notable. The hit counter (which is administered by the ISP software, not by me) of the Xenu page is at over a million. [4] --Tilman 22:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page illustrates my point - non-notable software in a sea of similar non-notable software. The hit counter is illustrative of the synergy Tilman Hausherr developed by linking unrelated software to the internet meme of Xenu. I do not know if Tilman Hausherr is notable for being the first to promote the criticism of another person's religion by means of naming an unrelated software program (I will spare you the analogies I can dream up) but I doubt that we will find RS crediting Tilman Hausherr with that "honor" anyway. (Not to mention the software and this article promoting Tilman Hausherr's reprehensible attempts to blacklist and cause trouble for ordinary public Scientologists.) --Justanother 22:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tilman, I am simply basing that on the article as is appropriate. If there is more notability then add it. --Justanother 17:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not allowed to edit my own article. I am thankful for others who do, and who make constructive changes and additions. --Tilman 17:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tilman, according to policy, you can provide the information, links and documentation so someone else can edit it John196920022001 17:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, glad to help to expand the article with more RSes ClaudeReigns 17:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am Tilman Hausherr, so no vote. The orginal merge request was made in bad faith and is part of a campaign against me, examples: [5][6][7][8][9]. Since I've been active in several fields, it is ridiculous to merge the article in the "cult opposition" article, which does not even have a "people" section. --Tilman 17:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn.... Delete Misou 18:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Misou, please provide a reason or your "vote" will carry no weight. Thanks.Justanother 20:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, ok: "Non-notable critic of Scientology with a couple of minor mentions and no relevance on whatever happens with Scientology in the world. He is also a Non-notable developer of one bit of non-notable software which he is not even trying to sell." Likes cats, which is notable and nice, but not for an encyclopedia. Misou 02:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Is notable enough to have a fair few pages linking to him, and since the article (briefly) covers both his work as a software developer and as an anti-Scientology campaigner, a merge to either would be confusing. Iridescenti 22:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep; it is true that most of Hausherr's notability derives primarily from his anti-Scientology campaigning. However, as per Iridescenti's point above, the fact that his program has received notable coverage as well means that a simple redirect would be inappropriate. I also applaud Mr. Hausherr for handling this in the proper fashion and avoiding WP:COI. — Krimpet (talk/review) 01:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I certainly don't think a merge is appropriate. There is at least some verifiable information that shows that subject is notable in more than one field. Vivaldi (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, propaganda, but a week delete ;-)... Although I think Tilman as a close circle of friends or a club, having an article on Wikipedia can only help increase someone's responsibility and this is highly needed in that case --Jpierreg 11:05, 21 March 2007 (GMT)
Strong keep -NOT merge- and desperately ask for vandalism protection. I don't know anything about Tilmann Hausherr besides what the article points to, but from all the discussion I've seen, he must be a Golden God for warranting so much hostile attention. I read the conversations and gape incredulously. ^O^ ClaudeReigns 14:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean that our new notability standard is "Amount of talk page discussion and dispute". Then I guess Brian Peppers deserves to be enshrined on the Wikipedia home page as Permanent Featured Article instead of deleted and salted forever. --Justanother 14:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cut out the sarcasm. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Thanks. Smee 16:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Mr. Reigns is employing a bit of sarcasm himself. Why not warn him, too? (Just a joke, Claude, I don't mind just so long as you are willing to get as much as you give) --Justanother 16:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, Mr. Smee, looking at Mr. Reign's edit history here; it is clear to me that he is no newcomer and that is equally obvious from his post here. So WP:BITE hardly applies for a second reason; not only was there no real bite, there is no real newcomer. The only thing real here, Mr. Smee, is your inappropriate and mettlesome "warning". Hold on, Mr. Smee. Weren't you warned about not picking fights with me? --Justanother 16:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the ClaudeReigns contribution history, the first edit was less than 20 days ago. Therefore this is a new user. Therefore please assume good faith, and stop violating Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Thanks. Smee 16:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
What's sarcasm? :D Is there an agp talk page?? :| No, really, I'm determined to learn more about Tilman (one l) Hausherr. Please observe my philosophy of wikipedia. For all I know, Mr. Hausherr, having only 5 Yahoo hits, might be a figment of our imagination, or a very important figure in understanding the methods of Scientology against its critics. Only time will tell. There is plenty of time to decide whether he deserves enshrinenment as a cultbuster or urban legend. Sweeping information under our electronic rug will not serve either such purpose. Please allow me time to eat Mr. Hausherr. For myself, it is only day 17. I find comparisons between Hausherr and misshapenly and developmentally disabled sex offenders to be ROFL amusing but a highly inappropriate personal attack against the alleged Mr. Hausherr. Brian Peppers [10] That I had to go offsite for a breakdown of that tasteless little piece of internet history is only proof that I'm on the right track. Citing a 'non-notable' subject to prove why things are notable and not-notable? Please tie my brain in a knot, now. No, don't explain. I don't want to be clear! _{not all projects should have pictures attached. *trembles in corner* this is why we call it abuse....} ClaudeReigns 18:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still... barfing... someone punish Justanother for putting that image in my head! Ok, now I'm kidding. :D ClaudeReigns 18:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please come out of the corner, Claude. Look, I have a cookie. Don't you want the cookie? Good, while you enjoy the cookie, let me mention that Mr. Peppers is reknowned in Wikipedia lore for the amount of digital "ink" generated here over whether he should have an article. You can Google here for a taste. That is why I mention him in reply to the specious argument that the amount of chatter here has anything to do with anything. --Justanother 18:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let's discuss the article, not each other. Notable scientologists are appropriate subjects for WP articles.So are notable opponents. This article is about a particularly effective ~~proponent~~ opponent. It is adequately sourced, and the notability has been fully shown. There's also notability in other fields. Just as it is unfair to lump all scientologists into the same group, so it is unfair to do the same with the opponents. —DGG 23:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and what is this person notable for again?--Sefringle 04:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Xenu Link Sleuth is popular free software for findng broken URLs on web pages. The subject's personal web site is also an information resource about cults in the German language, as well as in English. I note also there is nothing in the WP article about the OPC or harming tourism, thus no WP:RS exists to support this commonly spammed libel about the subject. Article meets WP:BLP. Finally, it is inappropriate to merge this article into Opposition to cults and new religious movements since the subject is just as notable for Xenu Link Sleuth as he is for publishing data about cults which pretend to be religions. Orsini 08:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It's not clear how notable a living person has to be in order to be "notable", beyond being the subject of verifiable published references. Wikipedia includes hundreds of articles on minor and ephemeral figures in the worlds of sport and entertainment; considering Tilman's conspicuous presence on the web over the past decade, he is surely more notable than some of these. Wikipedia has a role in answering questions like "Who is Tilman Hausherr, anyway?" DavidCooke 03:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and Orsini. Robertissimo 08:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as others have said, notability has been estabilished in more than one area, so a simple merger is not appropriate. Breaking up the information into articles on the separate subjects would make it harder to determine who Hausherr is. -Aleta 00:37, 26 March 2007 (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.