Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Bryant

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. 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 keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Martin Bryant

Very POV, verging on libel, paints a man as a "monster" using inaccurate unreferenced or else inaccurately referenced material, ignores other point of view, not notable other than for conviction for Port Arthur Massacre, all useful content could be merged with that. Largely original research. 203.26.206.129 08:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This a quality article about one of Australia's most well-known serial killers/mass murderers. Very notable, as his actions brought in the newest round of gun law reform in Australia. - Mark 09:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, this is a bogus nomination from an alias IP of User:Internodeuser, who is currently the subject of a request for arbitration, for incidents relating to this very article. --bainer (talk) 09:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment yet another example of lies being told by administrators. 203.26.206.129 13:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is a bogus nomination, it is by User:Internodeuser, User:Internodeuser is the subject of a Request for Arbitration, the request does concern this article, and User:Thebainer is not an administrator. Zero out of five. Ben-w 00:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: -- WP:POINT - no vote. - Longhair | Talk 12:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- - I am not an administrator. --bainer (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nonsense vote. Even if there were POV problems that is no reason for a deletion. Dysprosia 09:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Very big POV problems. 203.26.206.129 13:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, nomination was made in bad faith.--nixie 09:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The page is not consistent with Wikipedia rules, so it must be considered for deletion. 203.26.206.129 13:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, nominator is either unfamiliar with recent Australian history, or as Thebainer says above, a troll. -- Chuq 10:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Or should we delete jack the ripper, Timothy McVeigh etc..... Xtra 10:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, with a redirect, is what was suggested. Why keep a separate page when there is no actual correct history about him on there, other than inaccurate POV arguments? 203.26.206.129 13:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Have you also contacted the worlds' media to have them correct their reporting? Start there, then come back here. -- Longhair | Talk 22:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - He's busy "correcting" the media about things like the December 2004 Tsunami being caused by a nuclear explosion and how cigarette smoking cures lung cancer. Certifiable nutjob at work.
Speedy Keep - this user is almost certainly an alias IP of User:Internodeuser based on the contributions from the IP address that nominated this VfD. As per comments by Mark above the article is worth keeping about a notable subject--AYArktos 11:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- And I am suddenly a bad user? Goodness gracious. After all you've done? 203.26.206.129 13:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nothing sudden about it. Ben-w 20:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and speedy KEEP: I have reservations about anons being allowed to nominate articles for deletion in the first place.--Cyberjunkie 12:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops sorry, forgot to log in. 203.26.206.129 13:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sour grapes. Bad faith listing by someone with a conspiracy theory to peddle. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a conspiracy theory. Rather, a factual recursion of events. Conspiracy theories are things which you're not sure if they happened or not. There is a difference. 203.26.206.129 13:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep (delist) as very likely bad-faith nomination. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:13, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Please forget about this potentially being "bad faith", as that is being peddled by people with a hidden agenda. Treat it legitimately, and then vote. There are serious and grave concerns about the content of this article. If the guy's rights weren't taken from him, no doubt he'd be suing Wikipedia right now for libel. 203.26.206.129 13:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge as patent nonsense. Needs to have many more references, especially when referring to things like psychiatric illnesses, which are proven elsewhere to be entirely false. 203.26.206.129 13:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One wonders why you object to the point on psychiatric illnesses. Are you a Scientologist? A2Kafir 01:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Port Arthur Massacre - Karol 13:33, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Vandalism by a bogus VfD nomination. Keep the article, delete User:203.26.206.129 as patent nonsense. - Mike Rosoft 15:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Regardless of the user's personal feelings on the matter, this article is NPOV and accurate. There is no place for revisionist historians at Wikipedia. Scimitar 15:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, can't see anything that warrants deletion. If part of the article is incorrect, it can be corrected. Mgm|^(talk) 15:58, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This nominator continues to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and this bad-faith nomination is typical of the pattern. He has some wild personal theory about Martin Bryant and the Port Arthur Massacre, cannot accept that the consensus does not support his unique POV and insists on trying to force it through creation of spurious pages and malicious vfds like this one. Nominator needs to be fully aware that (a) his POV is not widely accepted (b) he has failed to provide sufficient evidence or cogent argument to make it widely accepted (c) no amount of dissembling changes the fact that these repeated edits, page creations, and nominations for deletion are disruptive and contrary to policy regardless of how he feels about the matter (d) these tedious, bad faith, disruptive tactics will not work. The world will not wake up one morning and experience a Damascene conversion about what happened at Port Arthur. Ben-w 16:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Bad faith nomination. Even if the article were POV (of which I haven't seen any proof) there is no reason whatsoever to put it on VFD. Sarg 19:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and delist. Bad-faith nomination. --Carnildo 23:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; very notable fellow for unfortunate reasons. A2Kafir 01:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - the man behind the largest massacre by a single gunman is an encyclopedia topic. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold got an article. Cedars 14:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Port Arthur Massacre made news worldwide as Bryant killed over 30 people. It led directly to tightening of gun laws in Australia which had a noticeable political impact most notably in the temporary rise of the One Nation Party. It seems to me to be a bad faith nomination because the nominator can't get his way on the content of the article. Capitalistroadster 15:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a bogus nominatin made in bad faith. Delisted for that reason. Tannin 11:15, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.