Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Shawn triscari


 * 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: delete. — Jeffq 01:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Shawn triscari
Not notable. ~ UDScott 12:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes from regular contributors; 5 remaining Keeps from editors who only contributed to this article, some of whom engaged in vote forging and some who may be sockpuppets; absolutely no evidence notability evidence established, even with repeated requests; standard excuses and dodges for such requests). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. ~ UDScott 12:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Merely claiming that someone is "a significant person" does not make them notable. &mdash;LrdChaos 13:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete : possible impersonation of me, or a rather odd coincidence, was involved with an editor of this page. ~ Shadow 22:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete
 * Do Not Delete Auraschild 20:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's possible that User:Auraschild is the same user as 65.43.180.63, as they earlier replaced the unsigned tag with their signature. &mdash;LrdChaos 20:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Um no, It's called a school network and/or a LAN. They all have same IP addresses.Auraschild 21:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This may be true, but is irrelevant. We have consecutive edits that show that Auraschild took an edit added by 65.43.180.63, signed it with his/her signature , then added a second vote (still logged on as Auraschild) claiming to be "JJ aka ShadowZero" . The first may be an unlogged user fixing a signature; we have no practical way to verify this (which is why UDScott reverted the signing). But the last is considered vote forgery, as it is a single username trying to make two apparently different votes. We require that users add signatures to their votes to show awareness of the process (which is described at the top of this page), and to help sysops to determine good-faith voting. But any Wikiquotian can observe the actual edits, including forged votes, by examining the page history. This behavior will likely get votes from participating users discounted, and may result in blocking if such bad-faith editing continues. IP addresses cannot register multiple legal votes, regardless of how many people they represent. Furthermore, we don't usually give much (if any) credit to users who only register to vote for articles, or IPs whose only contributions are to an article and its VfD entry. Wikiquote is a serious compendium of quotes from notable people and creative works, not a popularity contest to support quotes from ordinary individuals, however profound their statements or respected they may be by their followers. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * To be honest with you... That is kind of stupid.  You consider people notable only through Google searches and all that stuff.  It seems you have no respect for uprising notable people.  I hate people like that.  Someone can be notable in one area, a region that not many have heard of and if someone would try to put that persons quotes on here you would immediatly deem them not notable.  Google searches are a bad way to see if people are notable because some people don't let stuff about them go near search engines...  Some people like to be unknown in some ways.  I personal consider a notable person someone who defies what people say.  Someone should be notable if they were told they couldn't do something and they go and do it.  Like helping others or setting up homeless help programs even though people said noone would care and it would be a waste of time.  Notability should not be just by how many google hits you get and how many are actually that person but on what they did and plan to do with their future.  But what I say has no importance seeing how I am, according to you, not notable.  I only put my quotes on here because I used them in situations were most people who have freaked out and said or did nothing.  I have prevented people from killing themselves.  If you call that not notable then you people are really sad.  I really wonder what has truely happened to this world.  Just because of this whole thing, I think I'll make my current website a quote website donated to the people who weren't notable enough for you people.  Auraschild 00:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Auraschild, Wikiquote is a publication of the Wikimedia Foundation, and as such must follow its principles. Like any other publisher, it is entitled to define what content it should incorporate, and what it does not wish to have. Many people make the mistake of thinking that being able to edit a website entitles them to add anything they wish to that website. But the Foundations's goal (as far as I understand it) is to create publications worthy of the respect given formal print publications, but which are composed by anyone and everyone who wishes to contribute. That does not mean we editors can ignore its standards. You also confuse subject notability with editor notability. It doesn't matter that you or I are unnotable. (I don't know about you, but I am certainly unnotable, which is why I don't have a quote article, just a user page like any other registered user, yourself included.) Anybody can edit here, but Wikiquote, like Bartlett's Famous Quotations or The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, requires that its subjects be notable and their sources be reliable. I wish you luck with your own website; I have no doubt that many folks who wouldn't be included in Wikiquote might very well achieve a useful web presence in your and others' sites, with their own standards of inclusion and exclusion. Vive le difference! Vive la variété! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Another thing. Notability differs alot.  I could see Wilhelm Stekel as notable yet some other person (forsay my friend JJ) could see him as just a lunatic.  Words and meanings and notability differ from person to person.  The whole world could see someone as notable and yet the mediawiki thing could easily say they weren't.  I respect that in a small way but I also think that the minorities should have a chance in the world.  If all we did was allow the current notable people in wolrd to do anything, then we wouldn't be letting anyone else get into the notable category which you people place.  Such things are stupid and remind me of a mere child.  I've worked my whole life to stop homelessness and world hunger but because noone knows it I am deemed unnotable and disgarded as a normal average person.  But I am a respectful person and I will respect this notable policy thing.  "The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of a mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one."  I based my life on this quote from Wilhelm Stekel.  Like I said (or think I said) I do not want to be known much, I just want people to know my words, the words that have helped many people.  And why do you let people vote if it should be deleted or not?  All in all it is not notable and will probably be deleted anyways, what is the point? I don't know why I say anything.  My words to you are unnotable and that of an average person. (I am saying this next part only out of curiosity, though it is true) Would I be notable If I told you I have won 5 awards for my poetry and had my poetry featured in two different books? Auraschild 01:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to imagine a situation where "the world world [sees] someone as notable" and yet an entry for them here was deleted. Certainly it is possible to portray nearly anyone as a non-notable figure, and while there is no absolute standard for what constitutes notability, Wikiquote (as with Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects) generally operates on consensus. If a clear enough majority of people feel that a person is not notable enough to merit a page, then the likely result is that it will be deleted. There isn't some secret cabal that schemes to keep certain people from having pages here; the entire process is transparent and open to all. As far as your winning awards and having poetry published, that alone does not necessarily make you notable. There are many, many, many "awards" out there that serve only to earn money for a person or company through entry fees or payment for inclusion in a book of some sort. Most of these awards don't confer any real status on the person winning them; they don't become well-known in literature circles or anything like that. The same holds true for publication. Merely having a work published does not establish notability; the work has to achieve some measurable success in a large area/region. &mdash;LrdChaos 03:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's not get too sidetracked about the term "notability", which as everyone is pointing out is ambiguous. The way to convince Wikiquotians who are unaware of a person is to cite published information about the subject. As yet, not one shred of such info has been provided for Shawn Triscari, the subject of this VfD. If George W. Bush, who is inarguably notable, made a personal appeal for Mr. Triscari, it would be completely irrelevant. It's the subject, not the editor, who is the question here, and the evidence needs to be something that other Wikiquotians can investigate. Google, Alexa, the Library of Congress, Amazon, etc., are all just convenient means to the end of scaring up hard data on a subject. Since Mr. Triscari is apparently active in Cleveland, Ohio, citing articles from the The Plain Dealer would be one way to provide the requested evidence. I'm sure there are many other potential sources; it's a question of whether this person has appeared in any of them. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, tell me this, how can I prove I am notable enough for you people? I'm surprised anyone is even on here.  (Though it is irrelevant I would never let Bush make an appeal for me.)  But I am being serious, how can I prove I am notable.  I have never let anything been written about me because I refuse to be known.  I live life for other people not for popularity, not for being known.  Which brings up something else for me.  If someone never let themselves get published in anything how can they prove they are notable.  And I was in the Plain Dealer (and the soem west side newpaper and I think the sun newspaper) a couple weeks ago as a matter of fact, and on Channel 5 news, and 3 and 8 and 19 and 43.  But that's irrelevant to this.  And I will not provide links to any article because I am not going to resort to anything by the media to prove/say I am notable. (And mostly because I am going to e-mail them to ask them to delete the article.) Auraschild 03:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There are literally no more common practices for scam artists to delude people than by making assertions and then trying to confuse skeptics by claiming absurd altruistic reasons for avoid publicity and painting themselves as victims. The claim of this user about "refus[ing] to be known" are patently false, as he is working very hard to be known here. The idea that citing evidence is irrelevant is absolutely wrong, as this is the only relevant issue here. Note also how Auraschild mentions several major media outlets but fails to provide any details (program names, article titles, dates, links), and even foolishly talks about having a paper delete an article. At this point, further discussion with this soi-disant "respectful person" who calls his fellow editors "stupid" is merely feeding the trolls. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How many times do I have to say it?! I am only doing it on here so peopel can see my quotes!  I don't care about me or anything.  You want to see apart of teh article?  The article heading was Students Urging Voters To Pass Levy Next Month and was POSTED on channel 5 news website at: 5:23 pm EDT April 6, 2006. (Was also featured on 10 O'clock news, 5 O'clock news and I think maybe the morning news of the next day.) You people are really shallow and ignorant. And is there anything wrong with wanting to work in the shadows?  I refuse to be known because unlike most people I hate being known, I would hate my life if everytime I saw someone they knew my name and wanted to talk and because it is stupid to be popular.  You rise and you fall.  Why rise and fall when you can always stay in the middle?  Though even if you want to stay in the middle you will always have minor rises and falls.  I would never do anything for popularity or for money.  I just want the world to be a better place.  Say I am lieing, say i am full of it, say I want popularity, I DO NOT CARE!  Because I know the truth, I know what I want.  Another reason I didn't want to provide any media info was because I dislike the media.  They side with the authorities and proclaim their righteousness.   Auraschild 05:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Another thing. If I really wanted to be known you'd see more things with me in it if you searched me on Yahoo or Google.  And you think I am trolling? (not that I really understand it) Sheesh, I was hoping at least one person would understand my intentions.  And the only reason I am working hard here is becuase I hope someone comes across this and learns to stand up for themselves and defy the odds.  Trust me I have thought about deleting all my qoutes that I have on here and just moving them to my website but I believe in fighting for what you believe in and that's what I am doing now.  Fighting for what I believe in. Auraschild 05:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So if you think that standing up for what you believe in is wrong, you people have serious issues! Oh and if you wish to have your quotes seen (directs towards minorities and non-notable people you can have them on my website!  Go to http://www.eshemaunited.com/signup.htm  Auraschild 16:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete
 * Do Not Delete
 * Please Do Not Delete 156.63.190.132 15:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that all other contributions from this IP to date have been to add and self-revert nonsense (except 1 case where they reverted nonsense by another anon who had re-added their nonsense to the same article, Democracy). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I want to make it clear that I had no intentions of annoying anyone. My intentions were for the best.  I never insulted anyone!  I am outraged that you accuse me of that!  And, I never meant for any of this to happen, all I have to say is I am sorry for the way this all turned out and I am sorry for wasting your time.  Deleting the Shawn Triscari article will only be for the best.  Now I only ask for forgiveness.  If you could at least grant me that.  Auraschild 19:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am going to be the bigger man here and delete the quotes I had on here. Auraschild 19:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am guessing I am not allowed to do that either... Auraschild 21:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikiquote policy (for everyone) is to leave VfD-nominated articles in place, allowing changes to attempt to make the article conform to policy (like reducing POV or adding sources or details) for a minimum of two weeks. Blanking articles is only done when the content is likely a copyright violation or libelous, but even then the original content is available through page history. It is a practice on Wikipedia that article creators may ask that their articles be speedy-deleted, but we are still working to catch up to WP's SD practices. Sysops are just as bound by WQ policy as any editor, more so in some ways. It may seem odd to some, but we have had articles that other editors rescued from deletion requests by their original editors. (See Votes for deletion archive/Neglected Mario Characters as the most recent example, and some explanation why this happens on occasion.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

''Shawn is a notable person. The definition of notable refers to any person who has done something signifigant with thier lives. Because of the fact that everyones view of "signifigance" is relative, you can not say her is not a signifigant person. I will attest to his importance by saying that without him, many people have a high chance of being dead right now. This possible total is higher than a minor terroristic attack. ''Shawn Triscari has saved doesens of people, mabie even over 50. I can verify at least 5 of them for him. By denying him the privilage of being a "notable person," you are, in essence, placing him below the rank of a minimal terrorist. Doesn't he reserve the right to retain his dignity as a human? Are you persecuting this man because his views are different from yours? Your site is large, wikipedia staff. Let this man have his dignity and respect, and treat him not as a patron, but as an equal.... ''E-mail Shadow at Shadow_Zero_2000@hotmail.com (end of transcript) The above was a note from a friend, he originally placed it on the Shawn triscari page itself, but it was removed and I was told to move it here. It is also on the Talk:Shawn triscari Page. Thank you, Your friend, Shawn Auraschild (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh and the IP 156.63.190.132 is my schools IP address. I was talking to you people from the schools comp and must have forgotten to delete the history and they came across it. Auraschild 23:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * (Shadows notebook:) (This is not the WikiUser Shadow)
 * I actually had to use these today, a friend was contemplating suicide and ways to change her life. Sorry, I just thought I'd mention it. Auraschild 22:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I find it an abomination that anyone would use the suicidal feelings of others to promote their own notoriety. Perhaps, to provide the requested evidence of notability, the Friends of Shawn Triscari (FoST) might interest The Plain Dealer in a story about how a shameless, self-involved young man spends most of his day trying to convince people that he is important, completely forgetting that the true importance comes from the effort itself, not the publicity. This is the most disgraceful act of self-promotion I've ever seen on a wiki project. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey... I... I didn't mean to self promote... I just.. really got caught up in it and I just wanted people t...  It doesn't matter, "To you, everything thats going on in the world looks phoney, to be something other than it is, right?" (From Catcher in the Rye I think.. One of J.D. Salinger's works...  I don't think it was The Laughing Man {I think both are good and are good reading as well}) But I guess in this case the quote should be "To you, everything that I do in the world looks phoney, to be something other than it is, right?" I am sorry, and I mean that.. I... I really do! Auraschild 01:11, 12 May 2006 (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.