Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Perkis

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. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 06:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Perkis

Doesn't appear to be notable beyond a few vague assertions. I'd speedy it, but I tend to hesitate when the content is well-assembled. Tom Lillis 07:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - I tried to give him a reason to be, but its just too difficult. Born 1986, what could he have achieved? He's all of 19. Published author? But he's in university. Good on him getting a scholarship - these are hard to get. But he should be careful with the kinds of writing he is making, especially in light of the current attitude about terrorism. By the way, when I tried to vote here, it got me editing the main page. Some admin needs to fix this. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, google has no relevant hits. There are relevant hits for a David Perkis at Purdue University, but the article says clearly he is at Sydney University. And considering that the other one lives in USA, I doubt its the same guy. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - a few articles published in student newspapers does not establish notability. Demiurge 10:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Looks like a speedy delete. Maybe one day he'll be famous, but not yet. Ben Aveling 11:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep! - I was quite amused when I stumbled across this entry. Being a student of USYD myself, it was interesting to see a wikipedia article on this, shall I say, infamous character and I think I would be one of the better suited people here to comment on the topic. David Perkis caused a lot of controversy with some of his writings and more importantly his reaction to critics & most people on this campus and others in Sydney would actually know who he was if you asked them. That is certainly a notable achievement in my books! I may not agree with his views but the fact that one person could become so well known throughout the university deserves an entry here IMO. If you look at the google australia website you'll see he is mentioned on quite a number of veritable sites (govt, political and educational). I heard that the university actually retracted his articles from their online publication after some of the events covered in his wiki-biography. Anyway, he has become somewhat of an infamous character here in Sydney and I'm sure most people who have heard of him in Sydney would agree that this is a definite keep! Kevin_Grady

Kevin_Grady was created 3 dec and has only two edits, both to his own user page. [1] The above paragraph was by 144.137.64.141 [2] who has no other edits [3]. Ben Aveling 07:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. It seems to be a well-written, reasonably balanced article about somebody who has at least some local notability, according to the last writer here. That's probably still a bit short of normal notability standards, but I hate to see an article of reasonable quality just deleted... it doesn't seem to be the usual vanity junk. *Dan T.* 02:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - As the writer of the entry in question, I thought it would contribute to the debate if I presented the relevant information regarding the article's notability. Apologies in advance for the lengh of my post, but I feel that it is necessary in order to explain the notability of the individual written about and as to why it should remain on the site. I actually met David Perkis at a writing seminar held at the University of Sydney campus at the beginning of this year. Needless to say I become reasonably well acquainted with Mr. Perkis because he was certainly an intriguing character - he was definitely intelligent, but more noticeable was his outspoken nature. He openly stated his views to all people he encountered (even those who did not ask about them), and was not afraid to share his beliefs. What was also interesting was the fact that, in spite of his young age, he had already attracted people who I could only classify as serious followers of his unique convictions. I had the chance to get to know Mr. Perkis reasonably well over the period of a month and a half or so and during that time he showed some of his works to me. And it was quite evident that it wasn't just a matter of vanity - he actually seemed to firmly believe that his political views were pivotal for others to consider for the "benefit of society", as he put it.

Anyway, as I attend UNSW, I lost contact with him afterwards and not subscribing to his set of beliefs, I didn't seek him out any further. Then, about two or three months later, I started hearing about him from all different directions. A large amount of people on the UNSW campus were talking about him on a pretty grand scale, in spite of the fact that he attended USYD (an institution with which UNSW has what would best be described as a heated academic rivalry). Friends of mine, who did not know that I had ever met Mr. Perkis, had asked me if I heard about "that David Perkis guy", based on the controversy he was stirring up. Apart from his writings and the actions I wrote about in the wiki-entry, he had gotten into arguments with several high-level lecturers and actually developed quite a firm following at his university campus (not to mention sympathisers at UNSW). To put this into perspective, USYD has close to 50,000 attendees and UNSW has about 40,000. I have spoken to many people about Mr. Perkis following the events which took place, and it would not be excessive to estimate that an amount of people equal to at least 10% of attendees from both campuses have heard about him and his exploits, and a far higher percentage in the humanities and politics-related faculties relevant to his activities. That in itself would constitute in excess of 10,000 people who would have come to know about Mr. Perkis to a large extent in the past year or so (including those who attend other universities in the area and have heard about him). I completely agree with the USYD poster on this discussion when he said that Mr. Perkis attracted quite a lot of attention from his works, but it was largely a result of his actions that gained him his notoriety.

I took it upon myself to research more information about Mr. Perkis and write what I see as a well-presented and accurate wikipedia entry, due to the fact that some topics relating to Australian academia have been largely neglected on this website. With such a large volume of people having heard about a single person based on his beliefs and actions would alone constitute an entry into wikipedia, and so I definitely think that the David Perkis article merits a "keep" on the website. I hope my explanation above has convinced others that this is true. Cornelius S 06:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

this user was also created 3 dec and has only edits to 4 pages: this page, users own page, David Perkis and Brian Dorofaeff, a not clearly notable school teacher. [4] Ben Aveling 07:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• It's not a matter of whether we believe you or not. We still need some independant and verifiable evidence of notablity. Where did this controversy happen? Where was it reported? Regards, Ben Aveling
• I never claimed it was about whether you "believed" me or not. I simply wrote my side of the story to display more information regarding the notability of the person in question. I only joined a few days ago.. so what? I've been busy with university all year and haven't had the time to do any entries up until now. The fact that I've managed to construct what I see as two good quality entries in a few days is quite a good achievement in my books and shows the amount of entries I intend (or intended) to add to this site - not everyone has a multitude of free time on their hands to write entries all year. I thought that if I started writing now during my holidays that I would gradually be able to build up my level of work because it does take time to research and write wikipedia entries. I thought that the fact that Perkis is mentioned on sources such as an official Australian government website, a leading member of Australian parliament's website, the university itself's website, the old and highly notable school he attended's website and various other official state educational institution sites (not to mention the online version of Perkis's work that I could find in the short space of 2 days) would provde "independant and verifiable evidence of notablity", as you put it. Obviously not it seems and so I am attempting to find more sources... University controversies aren't generally published on the internet. Do you really think the USYD would want that type of publicity?

The fact that you would also describe a Mathematics PhD. who has had his postdoctoral work published in at least 3 different countries in numerous advanced mathematics and physics journals thus far as "a not clearly notable school teacher" speaks volumes to your ability for discernment, in my opinion. Also, what are you implying by posting the other user's IP address and his date of registration? I emailed my peers the links to the entries I made and asked them for their comments and to pass them onto anyone who knows of these two people as there would surely be a large amount of those in study circles that would. The fact that you are clearly implying something more nefarious again is extremely insulting - perhaps you should consider reading about not biting the newcomersand to assuming good faith before you bash a newbie who was just trying to add what he saw as relvant additional entries to wikipedia, and accuse him of all sorts of things. It's disheartening to see the level of attacks you have written and implied in your last posts for something which I thought would be trivial at best. If I had known that I would be personally attacked like you have done then I clearly wouldn't have bothered putting in the hours of work necessary to construct wikipedia entries in the first place.Cornelius S

• Delete, there may be an assertion of notability but there sure ain't any notability itself. Stifle 14:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable by encyclopedia standards. -- DS1953 01:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Could this be an attack page? Pilatus 02:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Whether an attack page or not, the subject is wholly nn. Eusebeus 14:56, 8 December 2005 (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.