Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Eppstein (2nd nomination)

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 Speedy keep. Triplestop x3 17:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein

Does not meet Wiki criteria for any notability. Does not meet wiki criteria for academics either. Seems the guy is a wannabe —Preceding unsigned comment added by BirminghamAV (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The creator of this malformatted and incorrectly-linked AfD, BirminghamAV (talk · contribs), apparently intended this article to refer to the article about me, David Eppstein (note the spelling). This would be the second AfD on that article; the first is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Eppstein. No comment on the merits of the present discussion except that it seems to be related to the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Tye: BirminghamAV is one of two single-purpose accounts arguing for a keep there, and mine was one of several delete !votes. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eppstein needs his eyes testing. There are two accounts arguing for the keep but there is also independent wiki users who have no connection to the subject - check the history page as well as the discusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BirminghamAV (talk • contribs) 21:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE

The author David Eppstein has a history of harassing article and can be logged back to 2008. He is currently engaged in a debate on the Matthew Tye page and has harranged the discussion with weak arguments. As per the wiki guidelines the admins will judge the page on its content rather than the number of objections mr eppstein has made. Note well that it is not the number of accounts that support a page - one is suffiencent but its merit.--BirminghamAV (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition this page should be removed as it violtes the wiki terms and condition with the user engaged in agressive and malicious activity on the site, rather than furthering wikis good article policy

Comment. This is a malicious attack upon a respected editor. The intervention of an admin is needed here. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- For what it's worth my reaction is more one of amusement than annoyance. But I agree that some cleanup is warranted. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While thanking the nominator for providing some comic relief, the references on the subject page (and its talk page) are more than adequate to establish the notability of the subject per WP:PROF. Reading the comments of the nominator above, and reviewing Special:Contributions/BirminghamAV, it is apparent that the nominator misunderstands Wikipedia's procedures. While this pointless discussion should be closed now, I thought I should comment as if it were a good faith nomination. Johnuniq (talk) 04:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep if it needs to be said. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Keep Nonsensical and malformed. It is messing up pages it is transcluded on.John Z (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:POINT. And a Note to closing admin - please move this to the correct page title Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Eppstein (2nd nomination) before closing. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 16:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Preposterous, pointy nomination, doomed to failure from the outset. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. WP:POINT. Disclosure: I nominated the Matthew Tye article. Unfortunately, I'm not notable enough to have my own article, and so the nom could not nominate that for deletion as well. We need some comic relief these days. Tim Song (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable and verifiable sources establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2009 (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.