Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Helm

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 was delete. This AfD has been disfigured by sock-puppetry; the sockpuppets' voices are not the only ones for keep, but after discarding them, the balance of consensus is that notability has not been established. JohnCD (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Helm

[edit]
Andrew Helm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a non-notable script coordinator whose dabbling in writing and production also fails to meet notability standards. Every source given in the article fails one notability policy or another. There are instances of WP:CIRCULAR, with assertions that simply loop back to other WP articles. There is a lot of WP:ELPEREN, including IMDB, which is not WP:RS. There is a lot of WP:PRIMARY stuff, which in itself is not enough to establish notability, since Wikipedia requires secondary sourcing. There are dead links and unsourced sections. There are even absurd additions, like the fact that a fire once came near his house, which obviously does not make him notable. Good faith efforts have been made to add sourcing, but none of these efforts has resulted in acceptable sourcing. Assertions of notability will probably be made during this AfD as well, but they will consist of nothing more than the WP:PRIMARY and WP:ELPEREN and WP:CIRCULAR that we have already seen. The article fails to meet the basic requirements of WP:42: “Articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.” Qworty (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Qworty (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree. He's won awards in writing, and has been involved in lots of important material. There is one dead link. There is substantial trustworthiness and continuity between the sources. User Qworty has been at this article for months, whittling it down and eliminating sources. Then QED he wants it deleted because it is unsourced. The importance of this writer of stories, television, video games and movies makes him notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. User:7&6=thirteen 18:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't named one policy. Show us some sources that meet Wikipedia policies for notability. Give us the source and give us the policy. You can't do that, because the WP:42 doesn't exist for this article. It's one thing to make assertions. It's another thing to offer up specific evidence. Qworty (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Au contraire, mon ami WP:42 is not policy. Assertions were not fabricated. Taram (talk)
The article contains evidence of significant coverage. Res ipsa loquitur. You have not met the merits of his notability. Its not your decision. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Name the coverage. Give us examples. If you're so convinced that it exists, then it should be easy to produce. Where is it? Qworty (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I put it into the article, and you take it out, and then say there is 'nothing in the article.' Chutzpah. Self fulfilling prophecy. Also, violation of WP:3RR, and you were warned. This is not unlike the admonishment you received on your talk page from Jimbo Wales.[1] You don't own the article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is your argument for notability? A message from Jimbo from two and a half years ago on an unrelated topic? Please, let's get back on course here. What, if any, are your notability arguments for the article under consideration here? Qworty (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The author was reminding you to demonstrate manners in communicating your ideas. This dispute asks "What is to be done next? What is to be learned from this?"(WP:DR) The message from Jimbo points you in your direction, Qworty. Taram (talk)
It's already there, unless you deleted it again. But its not your article, and its not mine. There is plenty in the article, for those who choose to read it with an open mind. A seven month effort by you may mean that you are closed on the issue and invested in a result. But its not for either of us to decide. We are each but one voice. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a WP:VOTE, and the outcome has nothing to do with the number of voices. Policy is supposed to decide AfDs. And so far, you haven't given us one single example of a source that can be used per policy to establish notability. This is your chance. Give us one. Qworty (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I have to chime in here. Qworty's position is that this Andrew Helm bloke isn't notable, citing Wikipedia's guidelines. 7&6=thirteen meanwhile takes the position, regarding the notability of Andrew Helm, that Qworty is a bad Wikipedian. I mean that may be the case but discrediting Qworty doesn't have much to do with the topic at hand. Maybe he's guilty of removing your stuff too many times, but only I suppose, if there's any notability to begin with. I've already made my position clear, everything I've seen in any revision of this page - the sources and the text itself - tells me this guy really doesn't pass the guidelines, most clearly stated in WP:42. It also has other issues - even heavily edited as it appears now, to me it still raises questions concerning WP:NPOV. Hst20 (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is a patina of notability there, but mostly the references given are non-reliable, or circular, or irrelevant to the subject or his notability. Wikipedia articles are used as references as well... Looks to me this is a case of WP:BOMBARD, and when that happens it's usually because the topic is not notable. After some research (because the sources there obviously cannot be trusted), I don't believe this person meets WP:AUTHOR, WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG for that matter. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article relies almost entirely on primary sources, and the rest of the sources fail to meet wikipedia's standard. I searched for anything that might back up notability, but all I could find was more self published, and primary sources. I did find a few interviews, but those were interviews done at conventions and were not published by reliable sources so those fail as well. Fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, WP:CREATIVE. I'm willing to change my opinion if someone brings reliable sources to the table, but as of yet I haven't seen any.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Determining the fine line between "notable" and not notable in this case is best suggested by the quote by Stuart Chase: “For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” For those who run in the realm of Stage Combat, Horror Films, Independent films, and the history of Webisodic presentations, Andrew Helm is not only notable, but distinguished. For those of you who do not, there is not much that can convince you that this individual, though quite prolific is "notable," though perhaps a better word is "noteworthy." As connoisseurs of network matters, some of you may be old enough to remember the beginning of webisodes on the Internet. If so, perhaps you will remember how short and clunky the early productions were in addition to how difficult they were to watch. That was because we all had something called "dial-up." Back then, did you ever ask yourself where the ideas for stories came from? It came from people who were writers, but were not fixated on the writing structure for film and television. That would not work on the Internet. Andrew Helm led the way in writing writing internet-based, fantasy-combat, webisodes (for those old enough to recall, like now, there were different genres of webisodes even as far back in the late 1990s). If it was only for his work in early webisodes, Andrew Helm is noteworthy. Like all humans, he had a past and a future. His past and future revolved around writing...like many of you who have already commented here. He worked in what used to be called independent television, moved into mainline television, and then started writing feature films. The ReelzChannel plays his film Death Racers constantly. (That is the Insane Clown Posse film.) By my count it appeared on ReelzChannel fourteen times between April and December of 2012. It pays the bills so Helm can explore other ventures. Anybody who writes at Wikipedia but thinks that publishing a story in an anthology and then receiving a nomination for the Bram Stoker Award for Superior Achievement in Anthology is not noteworthy, especially in light of Helm's other accomplishments and history, is either jealous or should never consider him or herself a writer again. Getting even a nomination for a writing award is no small achievement. There are thousands of writers in America and that nomination could have gone to any one of those people. So, whether one is made nervous by strong female characters in shows like Queen of Swords or Mutant X (as one poster here has indicated at the another talk page that s/he also nominated for deletion this week) or not, when one looks at his entire career Andrew Helm is a very noteworthy person to be included in Wikipedia. By the way, If you did not know who Stuart Chase before clicking on the link, that is okay, you just didn't travel in his circle of specialty, as might also be said for the arena in which Andrew Helm operates. TaramTaram (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Roberta Brown credits". TV.com. April 7, 2013. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The Hunted". TV.com. Retrieved 7 April 2013.
>"Andrew Helm". Celebrity Networth. Retrieved April 7, 2013. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Amityville the Legacy 3d". bloody-disgusting.com. Retrieved April 7, 2013. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Best in the West Announces 1999 Winners". Best in the West Screenwriters. 1999. Retrieved April 7, 2013. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, only one of those could even come close to classifying as a reliable source, and that is the best of the west winners...which from what I can tell isn't a notable award, or better stated I can't find a single thing about that award. The others are credits for work he has done which doesn't qualify for WP:42.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question WHat would make a "notable" writing award for you Coffeepusher? Since most awards are not listed online, I will need to find, get out, and look through my Dramatists Guild of America 2013 handbook to check it out, but I don't want to take the time to do that unless that would make the award a notable one in your opinion, Coffeepusher. Thanks! TaramTaram (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Answer you are welcome to tell us about the award, but honestly awards aren't counted in the notability guidelines unless they generate a significant amount of secondary source literature. See WP:FILMMAKER and WP:NACTOR and you will notice that awards don't come into the criteria, but they are assumed because significant awards will generate secondary reliable sources.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Answer whoops, I just checked out WP:ANYBIO and it states "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." So I guess if you want to make the case that it is a "well known and significant award" then I am willing to listen.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion Don't forget to check Writer's Market 2013 (or another year). It publishes information on writing contests, also. SNCKnightSNCKnight (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Best of the West Info So, here is what I found after hearing from Frederick Mensch of "MovieBytes - Screenwriting Contests & Markets Online" (and digging a little further):
  • "The Best of the West" awards are given by by True West Magazine and True West Publishing.
  • True West Magazine has been around since 1953
  • The current executive editor of True West Magazine is Bob Boze Bell. It has been many years since I have seen the History Channel, but I remember seeing Bob Boze Bell on documentaries about the west, including those about Billy the Kid. I believe there is a Western Channel (or something like that) and he appeared on documentaries for that channel,too. So, I think that in western terms, at least, he is fairly well known (but of course, I can be proven wrong). By extension, one might assume that his magazine is of national sigificance.
  • In terms of determining if True West is a national magazine, I found the following awards and mentions for True West Magazine which sponsors The Best of the West awards:
1) In 2008, the Western Writers of America awarded True West the Lariat Award for outstanding support of the organization and its members.
2) In June 2010, True West appeared in Fern Siegel's Magazine Rack in Media Post who wrote "The Empire State Building is my true north—as it is for anyone who lives in downtown Manhattan... For those seeking fun authentic experience without actual contact, try True West, Siegel wrote. He added, "Today, the popular history pub hopes to capture the spirit of the West with authenticity, personality and humor, linking its past to its present. In the immortal words of Seinfeld's Kramer: 'Giddy-up.'"
3) The Oregon-California Trails Association awarded True West the Distinguished Service Award in August 2010 in recognition of consistently publishing travel articles on the National Historic Trails.
4) On January 23, 2011, Bob Drogin, in the Los Angeles Times, mentioned that True West Magazine "celebrates the Old West." The article was repeated in the Washington Post on February 6, 2011. I would assume that since a mention in the LA Times is needed for a reference to establish one's stature, that comment by Drogin would work for that purpose; but, what do I know.
  • "The Best in the West Screenwriting Competition" (which celebrated writing about both the OLD WEST and NEW WEST) morphed into a general award for works already produced and as such changed the name to "The Best of the West." Frederick Mensch told me that the screenwriting competition was dropped in 2007.
So this is what I have found so far. I do not know if you would like to view True West magazine as a national publication or not. If you do, it seems that the screenwriting award would have been linked to a national publication which would have made it a significant award or honor among lovers of western lore.
Just FYI. Sorry it is so many words, I don't have time to check in frequently to keep adding a little here and there, so I tried to give you what I have so far, all at once. TaramTaram (talk) 05:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So what? He didn't even win. Qworty (talk) 05:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Check the preceding conversation first , then remember to use the WP:Civility policy please, Qwortysir (or ma'am). Thank you. This appears to have been a very complete reply to a question asked by .Coffeepusher. SNCKnight (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I fail to see the significance of the award itself if Helm himself didn't even win it. What is the purpose of discussing the notability of an award that the man did not win? This makes no sense at all. Qworty (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's it Qworty! That would have been an appropriate question to ask of Coffeepusher rather than brushing off Taram's efforts in locating information about the writing contest as it had been asked about. You could have asked if Coffeepusher thought that coming in as first-place runner up (a level distinguished from 2nd and 3rd by many writing contests) was an honor even though the first place award was not achieved. The reply "so what" means "it is of no importance" according to Cambridge Dictionaries Online. In this case, the "it" appears to have been Taram's research into the matter. When you used that pharse, you blatently dismissed another editor's hard work which violates WP:Civility policy ("Incivility consists of one or more of the following behaviours, especially when done in an aggressive manner: personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments.") SNCKnight (talk)
Comment I appreciate the effort on exploring the significance of that award. As you can see, I haven't struck through my vote for two reasons. The main reason is that I am not convinced that getting a "first place runner up" on this award qualifies as receiving a well known and significant award. The second reason is that most of the evidence presented concerned the magazine rather than the award itself, so I am not convinced that the award is well known or significant, even if the magazine itself is. But that is my opinion.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Mr.Coffeepusher, thank you for your appreciation. I do so really wish you would have said that you thought that being the second winner was not worth considering before I did all that work, though. (Just FYI for your future reference and consideration: In writing contests, there are usually two first place winners. There is the person who gets the pot and the person whose work is also well appreciated. That second person is the runner-up. Then there is a second and third place. So many people want to pretend that they are writers, that one can easily get 100 entrants or more when one announces a contest, so 3rd place is nothing to laugh at. I would think that in a contest run by a legendary magazine, they would have gotten quite a few entries for the winners to beat out.) Taram (talk)
Comment I do want to comment on your second point, Mr.Coffeepusher, in which you wrote: "most of the evidence presented concerned the magazine rather than the award itself." As far as I am concerned,an award or honor is only worth something based on who makes the award. For example, the Nobel Peace Prize is significant because it is funded by the bulk of the estate of the man who invented dynamite. The medal of honor is valued by Americans, but not by the enemy nations against whom soldiers were fighting to win the medal. Barnstars mean something to people who are on Wikipedia alot, but they won't get you anywhere when you apply for a job. (I hope you get my drift.) So, to determine if the best in the west writing award was worth the paper it is written on because it came from a significant group, that is the information I sought. I think that winning a prize from a legendary and well established magazine, like True West is an honor.Taram (talk)
Comment Two things, first "Coffeepusher" isn't gendered, so "Mr." is inappropriate until I specify otherwise, I'm sure you understand the conventions. Secondly the specifications are for a well known award, not an award from a well known publication, so getting first, second, or illustrious potentate of this award doesn't qualify for notability until it is proven that the award is well known, and in this case it doesn't appear to be, there isn't even a wikipedia page for it.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at the Andrew Helm page I see that Taram was the one who originally created it, and one of his arguments now against deletion is that "Andrew Helm is a very noteworthy person" regardless of wheather strong female characters makes a person nervous or not? It's just nonsense. The rest is anecdotal and unsourced, and regardless of which the page just doesn't meet the guidelines from what I can tell. I understand that you created the page and doesn't want to see it go, Taram, but I just can't find how this guy is notable in the Wikipedia sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hst20 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply As per above, and a hoho to you,too, Hst! Regarding the comment "...I see that Taram was the one who originally created it, and one of his arguments now against deletion is that "Andrew Helm is a very noteworthy person regardless of wheather (should be whether) strong female characters makes a person nervous or not? It's just nonsense." I am sorry that my comment created some confusion about what I wrote Hst, but thank you for reading it. The sentence referred to some comments made earlier regarding other endeavors. As per your opinion, I appreciate reading it, but I still beg to differ and respectfully disagree. The citations in the article are complete and indicate that Helm has made a significant contribution to the world of entertainment, including multimedia. If his only contribution was that of fathering the writing of webisodes, it alone would signify his notable-ness to receive an entry in Wikipedia. Thank you again for your comment, though. TaramTaram (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply You mean as in WP:Civility, right? SNCKNightSNCKnight (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Yeah, was a bit confusing but cheers. But lets's stick to the point. The first source for the subject points to a seemingly home-made site; a place called meat-insomnia.com, and it goes on from there. Reference #5 points to a members.tripod-page that's about 13 years old - I didn't know those still existed. The sources are poor is what I'm saying, see WP:IRS, though as you say there are a lot of them but it just looks like a case of WP:BOMBARD. And I don't quite understand your reasoning, why would creating webisodes make a person notable, as per WP:NOTABILITY? Hst20 (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply-to-the-reply Sorry to chime into your discussion Hst20 and Taram, but it seems to me that the reason one would be notable for developing the method of writing and formatting fantasy combat based webisodes (still used today) is found in WP:CREATIVE: 3.The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. Andrew Helm created a technique. Wordsword1 (talk)
Quetsion for Hst Thank your Wordsword1 for your input, too. Hst, I am curious as to what you thought about Wordsword1's comment regarding the notability to be found in WP:CREATIVE and the development of the technique of writing for combat fantasy webisodes for which Helm was recognized according to the webpage? Taram (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's nothing more than an assertion. Where is the WP:RS and WP:V to support the assertion that he innovated this? Qworty (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just an FYI WP:ELPEREN is not a policy. It only supplements WP:EL. Wordsword1 (talk)
  • Delete What settles it for me is WP:ELPEREN. I'm not a frequent editor on here but I came across the Andrew Helm page a couple of years ago, looking like an autobiography and a resumé. I flagged it for notability and someone scaled it down significantly afterwards, but last month I came across it again looking much like it did when I first saw it. That might not measure into it, I don't know, but regardless I can't find enough to meet the criteria in WP:NOTABILITY Hst20 (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — The sources are poor, and my searches didn't produce anything better. There's no substantial coverage of this subject by reliable sources. Credits alone, like liner notes, aren't enough to hew together a truly encyclopedic biography. In this case, fairly unreliable sources give more coverage, and the WP:BLPSPS and WP:SPS represent the most coverage, including anything that could add to meeting WP:ANYBIO. JFHJr (㊟) 19:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an old link if it works to a 2000 interview. http://thequeenofswords.tripod.com/Andrewhelm.htm REVUpminster (talk) 09:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The arguments about poor quality, looks like an autobiography etc. are irrelevant. If the guy is notable, the text can be fixed. But I do not see evidence of notability in the sense of reliable independent sources that discuss the subject. According to IMDB he wrote for a number of minor movies and TV shows, but IMDB is not a great source and anyway gives no biographical information. Discarding his linkedin page and various blogs, there is nothing but a short bio from the publisher of a collection of short stories that included one that he wrote. Publishers ask their authors to supply bios, but is just a list of work he has done. Again, no discussion of the subject. With all the effort that has obviously been put into digging up sources that mention the subject, if this is all that can be found he is not notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The sources in the article are beyond poor. The sourcing offered up in this AFD is not any improvement, and I can find no coverage to establish inclusion in Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep' - Borderline in some respects, but I generally agree with Dr. Blofeld, there's enough there to squeak by the notability requirements. Editors interested in the article ought to do some work on it, though. Nonetheless, keep. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article needs work and I hope everyone understands that including people with possible conflict of interest. The language is unencyclopedic, however the list of valid citations is substantial. Please improve it if you can. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 09:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question that is actually the main point of contention. My count on the list is that not a single one of the 32 references actually qualifies WP:42, Could you please identify which sources you think satisfies as a valid source?Coffeepusher (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Those advocating keep have not responded to identify which sources they are relying on to establish notability. I suspect the reason is because the answer is "none". Below is an analysis of the sources in the article as of this version:
  1. Primary source, and not significant coverage
  2. Not independent as he is a contributor
  3. Not a reliable source, and not significant coverage as the site just catalogs people's salaries
  4. Linkedin is not a reliable source
  5. Somebody's tripod page is not a reliable source
  6. IMDB is not a reliable source
  7. IMDB is not a reliable source
  8. IMDB is not a reliable source
  9. A directory listing is not sigificant coverage and in any case, Helm isn't even mentioned in the source
  10. Helm is not mentioned in the source
  11. IMDB is not a reliable source
  12. TV.com is not a reliable source
  13. Primary source, and not significant coverage
  14. Blogs are not a reliable source
  15. TV.com is not a reliable source
  16. Primary source, and no mention of Helm
  17. IMDB is not a reliable source
  18. Primary source, and not significant coverage
  19. Passing mention, not significant coverage
  20. No mention of Helm
  21. Directory entry, not significant coverage
  22. Confirms he was nominated for the award but is not significant coverage
  23. Primary source, and not significant coverage
  24. Quoted in a story about wilfires in LA, not significant coverage, not related to notability, and no evidence it is the same Andrew Helm
  25. Dead link but viewing in Archive.org shows it is just a directory entry and not significant coverage
  26. IMDB is not a reliable source
  27. IMDB is not a reliable source
  28. IMDB is not a reliable source
  29. Not an independent source as he is an author
  30. Minor mention in Ain't It Cool News, not significant coverage
  31. Not independent source
  32. Blogs are not a reliable source

-- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep "He's not notable" "Yes he is" "Prove it" "He won awards (List of Awards)" "Those don't count." "Why not." "Prove those awards are notable" "Long involved proof that the award itself is notable" "That proof was not from a reliable source" "The source was plenty reliable." "Nuh-uh" "Yeah-huh, and what about the awards his Web show won?" "Those aren't notable awards" "That's because webisodes is a new field, but the awards recognize that he is a notable writer" "Sorry, still doesn't count." "Does too" "Does not" Enough already. The Hunted won awards, he deserves some credit for it, he's Notable.Listmeister (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep That works for me (Listmeister)! "The Hunted won awards, he deserves some credit for it, he's Notable." SNCKnight (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THREE BLOCKED SOCKS WHO FAVOR "KEEP" HAVE MADE A TRAVESTY OF THIS AFD For days now, these three socks, Taram, Wordsword1, and SNCKnight--who are all the same person--have "interacted" with one another and with other users, arguing that Andrew Helm is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. What is clear from these "debates" is that Andrew Helm has exactly zero WP:RS to fulfill any Wikipedia policy that any experienced Wikipedian is aware of. The arguments for his inclusion are nothing more than WP:ILIKEIT and SOCK PUPPETRY. I submit it is time for a speedy close of this "discussion" and deletion per WP:SNOW. Qworty (talk) 10:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ == October 2010 == Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Meg_Whitman. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Qworty, your hostile behavior at Talk:Meg Whitman is completely unacceptable. You have been warned many times in the past about civility violations and so I know you know better. Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:00, 6 April 2013 (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/Andrew_Helm&oldid=1091560759"