Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernest Emerson

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 keep. Please defer featured status inquiries to Wikipedia:Featured article review. Thanks, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several users have asked me to restore this AfD (though I think anyone could have done this), so I have done so. I do not think an AfD is the way to resolve the issues with this article, and an AfD might be a waste of time, but I will leave it in the hands of the community from here on out. Thanks, Fang Aili talk 17:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Close for today; I was going to leave this open, but W.marsh mentioned it would be problematic to leave the AfD open when the article does not have the notice applied. Someone can "un-close" this tomorrow, when the article no longer appears on the main page. I see no reason to discuss this now, when the article (with a big deletion notice) will be seen by thousands of people. Thank you --Fang Aili talk 12:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Emerson

[edit]
Ernest Emerson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)(View log)

Article is clearly advertising or a vanity article. Cited references are in magazines notorious for their inclusion of advertorial content Albatross2147 11:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is not an advertisement because it mentions a company. The subject is notable and this article is sourced and passed peer review, Good Article Nomination and Featured Article Review. --Mike Searson 04:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit, I was rather surprised to see it on the front page - it reads like an advert to me. Chump Manbear 11:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has to be an ad, this must be un-featured immediately. 217.132.41.20 12:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not all that interested in knives or combat, but being a guy I found this a very enlightening article and found myself saying "cool" several times. I learned about some things I've never heard of or known about. All in all, I don't see why the article should be deleted. If it's an advertisement I don't see how since it says he's not doing the business anymore. Most importantly, I like reading about people (it says at the bottom of the page) who went from a starving student to a successful CEO building on a passion. That's what I found the most inspiring. Maybe the article just needs to be rewritten a little differently. -M. Campbell
I agree. Should be edited to about 1/10 of its original size, but I ain't gonna mess wit' a Seal man, NO WAY! I ran into the Taiwanese equivalent of a Seal -- they're called Frogs here -- and was twisted in knots and almost forgot my name! He said it was a "Yoga" lesson... and can you believe I thanked the guy just so he wouldn't go after me gain! Quirky 11:59, 01 October 2007 (East Asia time)

I am surprised that this became a featured article. The style is not encyclopedic; it's advertizementic. It would be my hope that this is downsized to about the size of a stub then built up from there with sources other than Emerson's site or his p.r. department. Sad that this got on the main page... Deepdesertfreman 12:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we at least remove it from the main page? 217.132.41.20 12:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Un-feature After checking out the main editor (User:Mike Searson), I absolutely believe he has acted in good faith. The article nevertheless reads like an ad though, and featuring it on the main page shows bad judgement by Raul.
Comment: MS had made some great contibutions to Wp but even the images in this article seem very problematic Albatross2147 12:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That is/was a misunderstanding. One image did not have the proper tag on it, it does now.--Mike Searson 04:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there must be less controversial articles to showcase Wikipedia's best work? Lampman 12:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Because this guy wasn't a yoga instructor that went into business designing and selling dreamcatchers, his accomplishments aren't worthy of merit. You editors are shameless. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 12:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with M. Campbell - advertisement is unlikely due to the fact that you can't buy his custommade knives anymore anyway. It was an interesting read and should not be deleted. Although you peaceful souls out there might not like the fact itself but he obviously played a role in equipping and training military and LE units. Michael Mohr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.140.150 (talk) 12:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Subject is notable. The advertising tone and any other issues can be dealt with in a manner that does not include deletion. Removing FA status is a subject for FAR. --Fang Aili talk 17:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nomination. When I read this I couldn't believe it was a featured article, let alone a FEATURED ARTICLE ON THE MAIN PAGE. This is exactly the type of puffery that Brad Patrick had in mind when he suggested article G11 of the speedy deletion criterion! Burntsauce 17:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article was well vetted at WP:FAC for a full month, received many supports and one object. Notability is established, and after several days of discussion, not a single credible example of unsourced puffery has been provided. Baby Gender Mentor received the same sorts of complaints when it ran on the main page from editors who didn't seem to understand the difference between sourced statements and puffery. Bill Gates' article also discusses his company and products. We delete articles that fail notability; this one doesn't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Burnsauce. The fact it passed FAC doesn't mean it's notable, it just means the FAC process is shoddy. The "stringent reviews" are obviously not happening, because it's more tedious to do them than to edit articles people are interested in. Tempshill 18:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • On second thought, I am changing my Delete vote to an Un-feature. This is absolutely not OK for a featured article. It is a sycophantic puff piece. That doesn't mean the topic isn't notable, and I am not sure whether it is, so I can't vote to delete. Tempshill 18:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ye flipping gads i've seen promotional videos which do less promoting than this article. For the love of god, this needs to be massively butchered into a non puff piece, needs to be de-featured, and the guy who wrote it needs to be bitchslapped. Defeature, Clean it the fuck up  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One doesn't need to be an admin to realize this "article" is a gigantic puff piece, as has been previously stated ad nauseum. How this ever became featured in the first place is beyond me. Burntsauce 20:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


the whole article needs reworked it could be about 1/4 of the size and still contain the information that is needed as it stands it is full of advertising type comments and self promotion just checking out google tells you this person isn't as important as the article makes out his wife which it claims is one of the most well known in her class does not even feature on google!

- get rid of it or strip it right back! John joskins 20:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per above. Also, in reply to Tempshill and Alkivar - for the same reason we don't do deletion/inclusion debates on FAC and FAR, AFD is not featured article candidates or featured article review. Defeature is not an option here. Raul654 20:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No shit raul. But if enough people here are for defeaturing... i'll put it up at FARC.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfeature and Weak keep - If and only if it can be cleaned up. The article in its current form is a boiled down synopsis of dozens of worshipful articles written by credulous drooling fanboys. I don't have the gun/knife/martial-arts obsession gene, for some reason, and therefore the article reads to me like a fansite, combined with an advertisement for the guy's services as a speaker, writer, etc. (not as a knifesmith). --Orange Mike 22:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm disturbed by this sort of assessment. The "dozens of worshipful articles" that this article uses for references seem to all be mainstream knife, gun, and martial arts magazines. Since you are apparently not into guns, knives, or martial arts, I can only assume that you have not actually read any of the sources themselves, making your assessment that they were written by "credulous drooling fanboys" somewhat unreliable. On what basis can you conclude that the guy is not actually worthy of the praise lavished by all of the these sources, and doesn't the fact that so many sources all have positive things to say make each of them more reliable, rather than less? I don't mean to pick on just Orangemike's opinion here; it seems like many of the votes in favor of deletion are making wild assumptions about the reliability or neutrality of the sources used in the article, without any evidence. I thought we were supposed to assume that published sources were more reliable than editors' opinions. Orangemike and others are certainly entitled to feel that the article has an overly promotional tone, but if everyone who has ever written about the guy thinks he's the greatest then the article will have only positive things to say. Bradford44 23:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not all; we have an admin calling (on this page) for the author of the article to be "bitchslapped" (and this is after he has endured all sorts of uncivil abuse on the talk page since this article ran on the main page). Narry an admin has stepped in. Wonder what became of Wiki's code of conduct. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to restate it so it's crystal clear - this article will NOT be de-featured as a result of discussion here. The only way it will be de-featured is if this is closed as a keep, the article is subsequently put on FAR review, and Marksel, Joey, or I close the the FAR review and defeature it. Raul654 00:57, 5 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ernest_Emerson&oldid=1137832688"