Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Rafti

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

William Rafti[edit]

William Rafti was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete.

Vanity: his major claim to fame is his Wikipedia contributions (apparently as User:Rafti Institute). A previous version of this page has been speedy-deleted on 14:35, 7 Dec 2004 because of "vanity". Eugene van der Pijll 17:15, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete vanity Cdc 18:26, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity. Article tries hard to establish notability but does not succeed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:06, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Googling around a bit, I found this, which seems to indicate that amongst some in the piercing community, Rafti is viewed as a self-promoting huckster. He suggests that he is unprofessional and in fact appears to outline ways in which Rafti has plagiarized portions of his body piercing manual. Given the level of vitriol in this article, maybe Rafti SHOULD have an article that deletes some of his blatant self-promotion and inserts some of the controversy that obviously exists in the piercing community. Or, maybe it's another argument for deletion. Abstain for now, interested to hear folks' opinions. Katefan0 21:20, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete -- after some thought, the things expressed in this article, combined with the fact that the entry is a vanity, make me vote nay. Katefan0 19:29, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Re-creation of a deleted article. [[User:David Johnson|David Johnson [T|C]]] 00:23, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • It has not gone through VfD before, so that is not a valid reason for a speedy deletion. Neither is vanity. Eugene van der Pijll 12:30, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Abstain for now. I have the feeling that a worthwhile debunking article can come from this, but it'll take me a wee while to do all the research. Can you guys please hold deleting this until I can finish my rewrite? Thanks! [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 02:21, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Oh, stuff it. I can't be bothered crawling through this garbage. Suffice it to say that this individual appears to a complete zero, notable only for the number of people he has managed to annoy. Delete. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 02:40, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, let's give it a proper VfD this time as it was speedy-deleted against policy last time. --fvw* 02:23, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
  • Delete: Sure seems to be self-absorbed navel gazing (and then piercing) of a figure who makes a great deal of a stir without much of a splash. Geogre 05:08, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I personally find some of the remarks such as “renaissance man”, and “retarded child” leave me scratching my head, but I actually remember who said each. Go to your nearest tattoo studio and ask if they have an opinion about Rafti/piercing and you’ll probably get a favorable response. When I go to Universities the first question is usually “who’s the old guy?” then they want to meet me and shake my hand and/or hug me- I am beside myself to understand some of the motivations of the modification community, but to an awful lot of those people I am somebody they want to learn about.

I have little if any control over what people post about me, but it’s apparent that some of you consider this to be an autobiographical attempt, to counter these claims I am going to post remarks by a few professionals in the field that support me, I’ll keep it short but people were not at all happy with the way they were represented in the BME article, I even have several letters of support from the local department of health sent to me after BME interviewed them and took remarks out of context.

A segment of the body modification industry has a well-deserved reputation for twisting words around and trying to put them into other people’s mouths, please don’t make the same mistake by trying to put words in my mouth that others said.

If you voted for this article to be deleted then please consider changing your vote on the grounds that whether we understand the cause or not, the interest for this listing exists, and I can’t prevent anyone from trying to put something similar up again.

Rafti Institute 11:22, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Only if it's not self-written. There is a reason why autobiographical articles are discouraged. William Rafti describes himself "as a 'renaissance man', 'genius', 'Einstein', 'too smart for his own good' "—yeah, right. This article could be valuable, but only if it is written by independent individuals who have no connection to any of the individuals and groups described therein. There appears to be little chance of this happening, hence my vote. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 23:41, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:54, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. No auto-biographies. Rossami (talk) 01:41, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Now it's even worse than before User:Rafti Institute started changing it; totally unsuitable for anything remotely resembling an encyclopedia. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:56, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Speedy if possible. It doesn't make any sense at all now. P Ingerson 12:16, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: DCEdwards1966 21:57, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Tempshill 09:47, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.