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 delete. Wizardman 02:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tymm Hoffman

[edit]

Blatant self-promotion, admittedly started by the subject himself. This was speedied [1] shortly before it was recreated. Let's give it a very good salting this time. Qworty (talk) 08:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. No coverage by independent, reliable sources. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self promotion. Salt if created again. JohnCD (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. STYROFOAM1994^talk Review me! 22:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No notability plus WP:COI violations. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 22:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - wow - this is pretty incredible. Honestly - you guys can delete this thing at any point you'd like - I am a bit taken back by it and can't wait to write about the last 4 hours on WikiPedia elsewhere - you guys are a bunch of elitist judgmental techies getting your rocks off passing judgment on what you think is accurate based on what you think you know about a subject. Un.Be.Liev.Able — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tymm.hoffman (talk • contribs) 00:41, March 26, 2008
Comment - you guys do know what most educational institutions think of the credibility of Wikipedia, right? I at least hope you can see the irony in all of this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tymm.hoffman (talk • contribs) 00:41, March 26, 2008

One of the problems that Wikipedia has is with articles that has content that can't be independently verified. Who is going to believe what has been written? If you can come up with reliable sources, i.e. those that have a reputation for editorial fact checking, that are independent of you and address you and what you have done in some detail, that'll go some way towards getting this article kept. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So Mr. Hoffman actually believes that he can come onto Wikipedia and write an article about himself, present no evidence whatsoever that he is notable in any way at all, and then we're all supposed to take him at his word about his importance and then get on our knees to commend him for his unestablished notability? Talk about "Un.Be.Liev.Able." Well, that's not the way it works around here, Mr. Hoffman. We discourage people from writing articles about themselves: WP:AUTO. The reason we discourage it is to save YOU from the kind of experience you are now having. Your arguments are not persuasive. If you have WP:RS that indicate that you are notable for something, by all means present those WP:RS now. Obviously, that would be the only reasonable thing to do in a situation like this one. Qworty (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'll excuse Mr. Qworty for his ignorance, being that he is an "editor" on an encyclopedia and not a dictionary and may not fully understand the definition of said word - but I don't believe I have engaged in an argument of any sort. Matter of fact, I think all I said was "Please hurry up and delete this ridiculous thread of nonsense." I don't know that I need saved from any experience I am having - this has been entertaining if nothing else. What does an argument entail in one of the 40+ countries you have enjoyed and relaxed in Mr. Qworty? And forgive me - for I didn't know encyclopedias were only for "notable" entities. Encyclopedia Britannica has an entry for grass. The green stuff commonly growing in yards across the United States and the world itself (as Mr. World Traveler Qworty could surely attest to). But I am sensing that Wikipedia isn't really an encyclopedia at all. It's a pompous collection of wanna be writers who probably couldn't get published anywhere else so they've built their own little network of pompous, arrogant, self-righteous wankers spewing judgment on others. And the funny thing is - that is fine - I'm cool with that. But why be so defensively arrogant about your little club? Just delete my entry - I put it there to help with SEO as recommended by someone - I'll give you nerdy little guys that - you know how to land on a search engine. Good day to each and everyone of you - hopefully someone other than Qworty, who has no sense of how to carry himself, will step forward to offer a shred of saving grace for this wickedly miserable and mundane site. Is this really what all the hype is about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.153.214 (talk • contribs) 03:00, March 26, 2008
- Grass is notable because it is a very widespread type of vegetation. Also, please don't be incivil here. Let's stay on the focus. For more information on notability, see WP:Notability and that should give you a better sense of what is going on in the deletion process. STYROFOAM1994^talk Review me! 02:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To be honest - this whole thing just piqued my curiosity in the nature of people - why some go about things with such hostility and others, such as Malcolmxl5, carry themselves in a kinder, gentler, more mature way. As long as Wikipedia has stupidity-spewing users like Qworty i can't see how they will ever, ever gain credibility in the educational instituion arena - I have seen it time and time again when very educated people dismiss ANYTHING that comes from Wikipedia - people at Technological Research Institutions that have a ton of research background and credibility find this site less credible than most gossip sites. Sad but true. But I am sure you guys know this. Malcolmxl5 - keep doing what you do - you are a tiny little piece of reason in a sea of nonsense. And styrofoam1994 - don't call me uncivil without taking note of Qworty and his "civil approach"
- I was referring to both of you when I said "don't be uncivil". Plus, Qworty was right. I guess he was a bit frustrated about these cases or something. As for the differences of personalities, that's because they're different people. STYROFOAM1994^talk Review me! 02:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - wow - I gotta say guys - Kudos! I haven't been as interested in anything online since - gosh - I dunno - maybe Netflix? The human nature of things here is amazing. Anyways - I just looked over all of the QWORTY Talk stuff - and it seems Wikipedia would be MUCH MUCH better off - at least in the arena of credibility and and promotion of cooperation - without someone like that running around posting the type of stuff he does. Just my opinion as I slowly start to understand this sub-culture of Wikipedia.
- No personal attacks, please. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 02:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- dont think I personally attacked - just stated what anyone can go read on his talks page. thats all.
Comment - I guess I'll just end it like this - because honestly I would rather practice my writing in another venue - but I think (and this is just my opinion) that Wikipedia is missing the boat by aggressively attacking things that they can't find references to on the internet and calling them false, hoaxes, irrelevant, unworthy, etc. First off - it just shines a terrible light on the editors who make up this "team" of folks at Wikipedia. It paints them as elitists. You can say it doesn't all day long but at the end of the day it's really just you saying it doesn't. When it really does. And second - knowing how Wikipedia works - i think they stand to miss out on the numerous links a fully-filled out history of The Dyslexics would have encompassed. We have had music on Fox Sports, on the Xbox 360, on Super Bowl Sunday - we have done shows with several large bands and been involved in other projects as well that may never have a reference on the Internet. But that doesnt mean that they didn't happen. We were part of an underground hip-hop independent label that formed in 2000 and has been a major part of sending an artist on tour to Africa and South America. We have had videos on MTV2 and created a theme song for a major sports team. But I guess if we didn't make sure we had optimized all of these endeavors so that they fell at the top of search engine lists then the Wiki-reality is that they are irrelevant, nonexistent or not worthy. I don't want to get in to a battle of words with a bunch of guys over this so I would recommend a very speedy deletion and I will just go about chronicling our history elsewhere. Thanks for the insight (brutal as it may have been) in to the inner workings of this company. it's been very interesting.
- First off, please see WP:COI. In response, Wikipedia requires reliable sources so information can be verified. I cannot find any reliable sources about this band.JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 02:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said - i am fine with you guys deleting this - doesn't need to be some long drawn out thing. I'd say shame on us for focusing on making music, practicing, mastering DVDs and CD and the such and not focusing enough on getting our stuff online. But again - not trying to draw this out - so go ahead - delete me - salt me - whatever it is that has to happen. I don't need to see WP:COI or any other wiki-links because I am not trying to persuade, argue, defend - anything. Just go ahead and can it. Again - thanks for the insight...

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.