Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Vaknin

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 of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Sam Vaknin

Copied from Article's Discussion Page:

With the exception of one small book of short stories in Hebrew, which may have been formally published some time ago in Israel, he is entirely self published ("Narcissus Publication" is registered in his wife's name and produces Sam Vaknin's works exclusively, always in soft cover).

It seems to me that, if there were an Hebrew Wiki, there might be a case for his inclusion in a Hebrew Wiki. There is certainly a case for his inclusion in http://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/ where regular users are better placed to assess his real validity, but apart from that, it seems to me that if there is a place to draw the line between valid articles and vanity this is it, as Sam Vaknin would seem to me no more than one of the droves of people who use vanity presses and self promotion on the internet to chase their "15 minutes of fame". --Zeraeph 10:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Narcissism is all about superfluous vanity, and attention-seeking. It is in keeping with the nature of the behavioral disorder to simultaneously utilize and attack a source of narcissitic supply; in this case, Wikipedia. This site is simply another object to exploit for the sake of self-gratification. The deletion of Sam Vaknin and his tiresome reposting of innumerable links to his articles would be tantamount to doing the world (and Wikipedia) a great service, high Amazon sales ratings notwithstanding. --72.16.41.16 06:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

_______________________________

• Delete A superfluous vanity page created by a user currently involved in attacking Wikipedia in the online Press see: http://globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=1590&cid=1&sid=19 --Zeraeph 18:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Adam ^(talk) 18:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, may satisfy WP:BIO as an author; I'd need to see some sales figures to determine that. Otherwise a clear delete as non-notable. Pretty funny that someone who attacks Wikipedia's value would be such a frequent contributor though. It's also a bit suspicious how close his userpage bio is to the text in this article... --Isotope23 18:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I can't believe that just because one of his columns involves Wikipedia it's given a separate section. How is it more notable than any other column he's written?! This is the kind of self fetishisation that Wikipedia doesn't need, I'm sure that if he had published a critique of Britannica, it'd be absolutely ignored. Anyway, this isn't a vote from me, he has a phd, so I'm guessing he's published some books. You'd have to examine them a bit more for an informed decision. - Hahnchen 18:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious Keep. Currently published author with relatively high Amazon sales rating, extensive editorial reviews [1], and well over 150,000 pertinent Google hits. Hard to see this as anything but a bad faith nomination. Wikipedia is not censored to eliminate mention of its critics. Monicasdude 19:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment

1. The PHD was purchased from a recognised degree mill (Pacific Western University).
2. The google hits are the result of years of deliberate self promotion and search engine manipulation.
3. Is there any evidence, apart from his own assertion, for the Amazon Sales figures?
4. I know, in one sense, the article (that really IS more a blatant attack than a critique) shouldn't matter, but it really is extreme, and is open to charges of being some kind of "reaction" to[2]
5. The "reviews" are largely the work of two people using several identities, and if you read them, rather obviously so
6. "Bad Faith"? Can't argue with that, but trust me, he EARNED it.

--Zeraeph 19:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Response. My reference to the Amazon sale ranking is based on the Amazon pages, not on anything the author may have said. And however fake the customer reviews at Amazon may be, the "editorial reviews" are, according to Amazon, selected by Amazon itself from outside sources, not user submitted. Monicasdude 02:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Self-promotion. He's got a user page, that's enough. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The frequent contributions to Wikipedia and simultaneous attacks against Wikipedia, made by Sam Vakin, are simply a presentation of NPD in action. SAM BE GONE... Delete, delete, delete. senihele 21:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Zeraeph is absolutely right in his assertions. Vaknin has been a known entity for years to just about anyone who's ever been part of any online site even slightly related to psychological issues. But that's not a very large community overall. And for the record, the number of unique Google hits he gets is only 386. --Aaron 21:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: If his PhD. gets referenced in his article, I want my degree-mill D.D. referenced in mine ... Adrian Lamo ·· 23:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Most of the delete votes seem to be based on the idea that the subject doesn't deserve to be notable. That's not an encyclopedic criterion. If applied evenly, next up on the deletion list should be Paris Hilton, Ann Coulter, a fistful of serial killers, and most of the US Congress. Informally, the real "notability" criterion here ought to be "Is this a person who someone might reasonably want more information on, and look up in Wikipedia?" By that standard, it doesn't matter how much of the subject's prominence comes from self-promotion, or whether the number of unique Google hits out of the 150,000+ is 3, 300, 3000, or 149,999. If somebody rummaging around the web can find him in 150,000 places, that's the relevant number for assessing notability. Monicasdude 02:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Damn you, Monicasdude, for making such a reasonable argument that I'm forced to agree in principle, despite my gut saying this gentleman should go :) . Adrian Lamo ·· 02:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• He's a funny man, that article was quite a nice read, although the ending was off: In the absence of such third party accreditation, the Internet risks both irrelevance and disrepute. Now, I don't know about standards at Mr Vakin's social circle, but where I come from, the Internet already IS irrelevant and disreputable, and justly so. --Agamemnon2 08:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment "Is this a person who someone might reasonably want more information on, and look up in Wikipedia?" With 150,000 self produced and promoted, frequently duplicated hits, on Google WHAT ON EARTH would anybody want further information for? Seriously? Since it was posted this article has remained a promotional stub, almost identical to his user page, so there can't be very much more anybody wants to know or say about him, including himself. There are some nasty (in various senses) people who are "notable" but they have all actually achieved some aspect of that notability offline, the only thing Sam Vaknin is notable for is artificially generating an huge internet presence under his own name. There are several MLMs that have done the same thing and we don't have entries for them? --Zeraeph 10:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep if you look at the google hits that author does seem to be notable. Elfguy 14:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• ABSOLUTE Delete Wikipedia is being used as propaganda for a verifiable fraud, charlatan and diagnosed nutcase! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.121.233 (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

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.