Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redstar2000

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 procedural close. AfD was never closed or decided. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 01:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"alias of a popular and controversial Marxist writer" with several websites. Indications of notability welcome. --Ianb 17:58, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ahh...NO. Proletariat Vanity. When you see phrases like "currently 're-thinking the communist project'" and "new communist paradigm", it SCREAMS "hit me with the Delete stick!". Delete Terrapin 18:27, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: It's not so Marxist after all, if it's anarchist, and the proletariat don't never get higher consciousness. You've got to make do with the consciousness it already has. Geogre 19:24, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
keep: I don't understand what's wrong with it, and as far as I know the man is not an Anarchist. Whoever wrote it was not very well informed on the guy, but your comments stink of personal point of view. It needs reworking, but give the guy a break--Che y Marijuana 22:38, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
We may live to regret this when our backs are against the wall after the revolution. Nevertheless, Delete. Lacrimosus 22:39, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I don't see a problem, are we going to delete Marx too because he came up with the idea? Or are we selecting only "special people" for this? Pfft, this isn't what the internet is about, this is perhaps the stupidest arguement "OMg, he's a marxist! Let's kick him off our encyclopedia! But let's keep Marx because he's all right with me!"*Kashkin 22:40, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: the argument isn't that he must be deleted because he's a Marxist. Nobody's suggesting we delete Karl Marx; as a published, well-renowned and extremely influential writer his notability is beyond question. I believe it's not so for our friend Red Star, and so far no-one is yet to prove otherwise. If you wish the article to be kept, please indicate why you think this person is notable. Lacrimosus 23:05, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Oh, good. Just so long as the internet remains only for the influential people! Thank God, that only the influential orators remain in this internet for the demagog. Please, if the only arguement for deletion is because he isn't a "well-renowned and extremely influential writer", then indubitably this entire site is a waste of time.*Kashkin 22:40, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Kashkin has made no contributions other than to this debate. DJ Clayworth 15:08, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- It isn't the Internet that's only for famous people. It's an encyclopedia that's only for influential people. This is an encyclopedia that happens to be on the Internet. As a Marxist, I only noted that anyone who detects higher consciousness in the proletariat and thus becomes an Anarchist is not a Marxist. There are lots of people writing web pages and blogs. When they're famous and influential, they go in an encyclopedia. Redstar2000 isn't that yet. Geogre 02:40, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- If you're looking for a website to publish information about little-known people then this site is indeed a waste of your time. DJ Clayworth 04:28, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. Comment: If deleted, also delete the redirect Redstar 2000. Rossami 23:42, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The more I think about it, Redstar is more notable than Gounoud. Or, for that matter, more noteworthy than someone like Hitler.*Kashkin 22:40, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep: Redstar2000 claims to have met Ernesto Guevara in 1964, and had a three-hour discussion, along with a group of students through the use of an interpretor. There is credible evidence to suggest such, as there indeed were two groups of students who visited Cuba in 1964.

He made a point of it at one time, and then pontificated on it a couple of times at his "internet message board home" on request. That is little known at any rate, since he doesn't exactly go around boasting about it. The revealing of that claim came about a character question on Guevara. Unfortunately, some of the posts in question the "Chit Chat" forum at the Che-Lives Community have been deleted, as there was a cropping of posts some times ago, but he can relate more details to you if you ask. Here is one reference: Fidel & Major League Baseball Plus, there is the reference to his 1964 trip here. I'm not sure if that is enough for the liking of users here, if indeed notability is a 'policy' for the keeping of pages, but it certainly does add something to his notability, at any rate. It's up to everyone else to decide. The page is only a stub at the moment, and would no doubt be developed given the chance.--C Blackberry 22:51, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

- C Blackberry has made only one contribution (to a talk page) other than to this debate. DJ Clayworth 15:08, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Fascist, communist or naturist, one website isn't enough to be notable. Not even if he met Guevara. If more information becomes available I'll change my vote. Delete. DJ Clayworth 04:28, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete for reasons given above. Fire Star 04:46, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete: proletarian vanity. Just when I thought I'd seen it all.... Wile E. Heresiarch 14:44, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete for reasons given above. Andris 15:10, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
- I'd just like to note that the page has been edited and expanded with more suitable content. He represents a fairly unique theoretical standpoint and an audience of at least 7500 ain't bad at all. I'm sure we have content on political figures who were involved in much smaller organizations. I also would like to note that the page was not created by him, he was amused to find it as was I. I'm still trying to figure out who originally created it, though I have edited it myself a few times--Che y Marijuana 07:03, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  - It's not the quality of the article that's the problem, however, it's whether he should be an encyclopedia at all. On that note, my vote remains unchanged. Ambi 09:42, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Rubbing elbows with a few top dogs and having dinner with others does not automatically confer notability. I see no body of literature in the reference section, or anything for that matter that would indicate that this gentleman's ideas have much greater following than his reflection in the mirror. I support revolutionary thought, but it does not have a place here unless it has shaped, to some degree, public thought. Denni ☯ 00:10, 2004 Sep 6 (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.