Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 16

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 Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 15:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gånglîå

not noteable probably vanity, small one man band, poor quality website, no citations The Crying Orc 15:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 keep. --ais523 09:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Port Dover Sailors

Wikipedia is not a roster. This article does not contain encyclopedic content.

• Sr13 05:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep Hello, the roster was added by an anon as far as I know and I hadn't got around to deleting it. It is now gone. The page is an Ice Hockey Stub for a Junior Ice Hockey Team... it will be expanded in time. I would appreciate patience and that this AfD would be dropped. DMighton 04:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DMighton. --Marriedtofilm 04:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Speedy kept - see below - Yomangani^talk 16:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Inconvenient Truth

Reason Angad Bhat 10:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• vandalism

This AFD makes no sense. Speedy kept. William M. Connolley 11:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lost awards

This is already covered in prose format at Lost (TV series). There's no need for a lengthy list. Jtrost (^T | C | _#)

• Delete. We don't need this information twice. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article should be lost. TJ Spyke 00:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We need to save the space, think of the bandwidth.
  TehKewl1 01:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete No need to duplicate the information. Hello32020 02:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redundant content. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 02:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not needed, besides no refs and can such a list ever be complete? Not likely.
  ^brendel 07:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge and delete Szczur Zosia 09:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 12:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' per nom. Unneccessary. 23skidoo 14:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Delete per nom, needs to be merged though. Valoem ^talk 17:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. Little if any encyclopedic value.UberCryxic 18:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no reason for a separate article here.--Isotope23 20:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per all of the above. Meg298 20:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' per nom. PKtm 22:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete, per everything said above and more--
  .M.S 22:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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.

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. Several votes said "Keep if references are added." Though external links were added, none of the originally questionable info was referenced; in fact, most of it has been removed. Thus, I add those borderline votes to the 60% or so who are voting straight delete.

Brent Murray

This seems to be simply a

• Delete. While I think this subject will one day be notable, I agree with Pinkville that he is not now. SteveHopson 00:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep assuming the list of clients is correct, seems notable enough. Needs sourcing though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as spam -- no reliable source. This would be a copyvio, except that the user posted his own website material. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if references added before end of AfD, agree with Starblind. JYolkowski // talk 01:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm concerned about the copyvio on this page, since many of the sentences are outright copied from his website. FrozenPurpleCube 01:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make that ALL of the page. Sorry, but I think that means delete It would be one thing to rewrite it, but I'd still prefer to start from a blank on it. Not that I agree he is notable enough, though he may be better than some in the American photographers category. FrozenPurpleCube 01:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unusually, his website does not seem to claim copyright, and there's good reason to think that the content has been reproduced in WP by its creator. The combination of these two stops me from summarily deleting it as a copyvio. -- Hoary 02:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if he ever becomes notable someone else can write the bio. And from scratch. ...added at 01:48, 16 October 2006 by Therin83
• Delete because the content is not independently verifiable. -- Hoary 02:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Additional references have been added that appear to demonstrate notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The NYT links need registration. (No, this doesn't automatically disqualify them, but it is irritating or worse.) The next link I tried was the BBC one. It doesn't mention either "brent" or "murray", or perhaps the search function in my browser is broken. At that point I gave up looking, at least for the time being. -- Hoary 04:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep and rewrite. NPOV is a MAJOR problem. This article is 100% autobiograhpical, but he's somewhat notable. IMDB has an entry, though its paltry. However, a google search turns up MANY pages that do not include self-created pages. He does seem to be the guy he claims. Still, by the standard that "if no one who doesn't know you is inspired to write about you, you are probably not notable" then, well, maybe he's not notable. His body of work is impressive, and the article can be brought up to standard if someone were so inspired. --Jayron32 03:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, IMDb is not really authoritative, information can be submitted by anyone who registers (i.e. possibly Murrary himself) and IMDb doesn't maintain the standards and quality checks that Wikipedia does. The Google search is pretty underwhelming; only two sites apart from his own turn up: lightstalkers.org, which seems to be nothing more than a CV hosting service, and modelmayhem.com, which is the same thing. Both these sites merely host information supplied by the photographer himself. Conducting my own search I found a hit for a site from which his member name has been deleted and one credited photo from a brief NY Times article, plus one or two others. There's also this hit (with a link to an article that requires registration): "Ms. McNally joined The Times in 2004 as director of photography. ... And special thanks to Brent Murray of our Web site who painstakingly inserted visuals ..." that makes Murray sound like a fairly low-level employee, though more might have been revealed if I had registered. I suppose. Pinkville 13:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In its most current iteration, the article appears to be unbiased, and the NYT articles references are indeed legit. There are sufficient Google hits for me to believe his claim, and it appears that the POV issue has been resolved. Consequentially 04:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Commercial photographer with multiple publications. Article has been much tidied from vanity first edition. Watch, however, for recurring POV/vanity issues. Robertissimo 05:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Switch me to a weak delete on this one; should have reviewed
  WP:BIO on photographers before opining, and while his work is published, he seems not to meet the notability threshold... Robertissimo 12:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Questions: I'm still puzzled. There are two lists of links. The first has two links: one to Murray's own site and the other to what appears to be a page supplied by him to some networking (?) site. The second mostly has links to pages in the NYT that are said to show photos by him; of the two that aren't NYT, one shows nothing by him and the other shows a competent but completely humdrum publicity mugshot. Talk of "multiple publications" suggests to me a list of books, or at least major magazine features. Are there any? Any news stories about him? Any exhibitions by him? -- Hoary 06:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply -- Sorry, I should have been clearer -- he has multiple commercial publications of individual photographs, most of which do seem to be related in one way or another to the NYTimes. All links in "Photographs reproduced" do include a shot by him (Margo Jefferson on the Random House site and Ben Brantley (credited in the alt text) on the BBC's, and breaking the list out in that way was my attempt to clarify that the links were not, strictly speaking, as had previously been indicated, "References." I'm not saying he's Richard Avedon, but he does appear to be a working photographer of some established professional notability. That the page started with very definite vanity and autobiography issues seems to have been overcome, although it still needs stronger sourcing and, as noted above, will bear watching. Robertissimo 07:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. I appreciate your work on this and your position. But meanwhile, this does say that photographers should have been published and have received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work. True, this is a mere guideline, but I thought guidelines are, if not observed, then bent or broken only for good reason. On the evidence adduced so far, BM seems an unremarkable photographer. If his work (for the NYT or elsewhere) had won comment in some newspaper, that would be a different matter. -- Hoary 07:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the new Brent Murray standard of notability, I should have my own Wikipedia article. I'm also no Richard Avedon, but I'm a hardworking employee in a museum/research institute with several hundred thousand words of my own writing for this institution published on the Internet in the form of online collections documentation.... ;~) Pinkville 13:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Robertissimo's standard is that we have not consistently applied this to other AfD discussions. Brent Murray's self article still fails the

WP:Bio guideline that has been consistently applied to other AfD discussions that I've monitored. Yes Murray can show that his photographs have been published, but, as Hoary points out, these do not consitute 'multiple independent reviews or awards.' The article still does not contain verifiable references that were not self-generated. Many, many photographers have had work published by the NY Times -- will this be a new standard? As I've said before, I think Murray will someday be notable, but, unless we want to lower the standards for everyone else that we've deleted, he is not notable today. SteveHopson 14:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete -
  WP:NOTABILITY /Blaxthos 07:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Robertissimo. Cynical 07:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vanity and non-notable and because of the lack of third-party sourrces. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 14:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails the
  WP:Bio guideline completely. A couple of photos published by the NYT doesn't qualify as 'notable'. Also, I could find no verification of the rewards cited on this person's personal website. Alcarillo 19:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Madchen Hoch 22:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, if the article will start adding sources then it should be kept if not then delete . . . added at 22:43, 16 October 2006 by
  User:Seadog.M.S
  • You are free to add sources at any time during this AfD process. -- Hoary 01:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. he's a nobody, should never have written an article about himself. How many thousands of articles on photographers are there going to be if this is the criteria for an entry? Sam Hayes 23:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep + Rewrite. Somewhat Notable. Seeing some of his work + a rewrite should be all it takes. .... added at 23:09, 16 October 2006 by User:Iced Kola
  • You are free to rewrite at any time during this AfD process. -- Hoary 01:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He's a commercial photographer. He sells pictures to magazines, just like thousands of other American commercial photographers, to feed the voracious appetite of hundreds of photo editors and art directors, no more notable or outstanding than all those other commercial photographers. This article has no outside references, no awards, no coffee-table books, no gallery or museum shows -- just links to samples of his work: in other words, it's a Wiki-CV/portfolio, not an biographical article. --Calton | Talk 05:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No assertion of
  GRBerry 17:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, as per Andrew Lenahan - Starblind, above. Smeelgova 04:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Weak delete. Neutral. I would say keep as long as someone (not me) wants to rewrite it NPOV, with content. He seems notable enough to me, as per
  WP:BIO. AubreyEllenShomo 18:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Also, I meant to say, reasoning from
  WP:AUTO. WP:AUTO is clear about this, and the proof is in the unwillingness (or inability) of others to expand and make a workable article. If this goes another day without some substantial further improvements, I'll probably switch my vote to a weak delete. AubreyEllenShomo 18:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• No new adds, so I'm changing my recommendation to a weak delete, as I said I would. I don't thik the evidence of notability is clear enough. AubreyEllenShomo 00:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the autobio and notable reasons discussed above. - Corporal Tunnel 01:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not yet notable and the curious links don't help. BlueValour 01:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gelphie

I tried to PROD this, but it was removed without comment by an anon with no other edits. Where do I even begin? Essentially

• Delete as nominator. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The first sentence: Gelphie is the term coined by fanfiction authors and fanart artists in the Wicked fandom. Nuff said.
  Danny Lilithborne 00:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete patently original research. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 00:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as
  original research. Hello32020 02:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete unless some
  original research.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 02:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete neologism, original research, unverifiable. Resolute 03:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 11:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonnotable fanfic term. NawlinWiki 14:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Madchen Hoch 22:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 merge and delete. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of street names of drugs

• Delete. The best of this information is already in the respective articles. The minor names belong in Urban Dictionary. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  eeb (^chat/_patch) 02:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge the names into the related drug articles.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 02:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & Delete per nom. It's a fun article/list to read through and I like the concept, but with no sources it lacks the quality that is needed for this setting. —MJCdetroit 02:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete per above. MER-C 03:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge + Delete The street names of drugs may, with due referencing, be mentioned in the articles discussing those drugs. This list, however, seems to compromise the professional integrity of WP somewhat.
  ^brendel 07:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep While I concur with the sentiment that this list may be a target for vandalism and/or difficult to source, those factors should not doom it. This list has a heck of a lot more value than 90% of the lists on wikipedia (e.g. Pokemon) because drugs are a legitimate public policy concern and the names of these drugs are thus notable. Many articles discussing celebrities are also vandalism targets, and while I think Wikipedians can ask too much of sourcing, it should not defeat an article like this where everything might be sourced with enough effort. Allon Fambrizzi 08:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
  • Comment Are you going to put forth the effort? Because nobody else seems to be doing so and I'm getting tired of reverting "Colombian Alpine ski trip" or whatnot.
    Danny Lilithborne 08:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• merge or keep – interesting article.... Szczur Zosia 09:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - innacurate / subjective / unverifiable / original research / etc etc etc . Side note: pointing to other articles that also violate policy to justify this one doesn't "make a right." ;^) /Blaxthos 11:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Kojidude, these are best covered in individual drug articles. Andrew Levine 15:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentWhat is the comparative utility of having a "List" article versus a "Category:Street drugs?" Many sorts of info on Wikipedia lose utiliity if the information only exists in unconnected individual articles. Categories seem more efficient. The problem of drug abuse makes the overall topic notable, but the question is how to allow efficient search for info about the drugs.Edison 19:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Violates
  WP:OR SirFozzie 20:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• keep it it's important to educate people about this stuff. Billybob1591 22:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  ergot 15:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge and delete I gave up on this one awhile ago; a constant influx of crap. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; it's a valuable reference for those involved or interested in substance abuse and recovery. Note that due to the nature of street drugs, it's difficult to impossible to verify terms which are created to avoid detection from authorities. - GilliamJF 19:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't understand your rationale. How does knowing that meth is sometimes called "Johnny Fat Sacks" help someone interested in substance abuse? And your second sentence is actually a reason to delete, not to keep.
    Danny Lilithborne 19:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --ajvol 12:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antonia Bennett

Fails

• Keep Firstly allow me to state that this subject meets
  WP:MUSIC. She has gone on a national concert tour in the U.S.A. The evidence is in this webpage. However, I am not sure if the David Award for entertainment is a major award, but if it is, then she deserves an article of her own. On top of this, she was also a guest at the White House with President Bush, Tony Bennett, Robert Redford, and Tina Turner. If one is a guest at the White House, does that automatically make the subject notable? The article also has a few references and this makes it an even stronger candidate for its inclusion. Finally, the potential of this article to be expanded is strong as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 01:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Plenty of Google results confirm notability, such as this or this.--Húsönd 01:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to Tony Bennett. She's achieved nothing more than many other aspiring jazz singers with great talent but much less notability. GassyGuy 03:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC) Changing to neutral in light of sources below. GassyGuy 05:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep actually, the cited articles are terrible sources, since they are all self refernced (they are either created by Ms. Bennet or in support of her own commercial ventures". Still, this review in a major newspaper and this other review and this one too show that she does rate on independant press. She shows up outside of self-promotion, then she is probably notable. Incedenatlly, many more articles like this can be found on a google search. --Jayron32 04:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The "sources" provided are either press releases or trivial mentions. The Las Vegas Tribune article [1] is primarily about her father, with a paragraph stating that Ms. Bennett is also performing in his show. The "jazzimprov.com" reference [2] is about an entirely different performer, Ada Rovatti, with mentions that she has performed with Bennett. The Cape Cod Online article was again primarily about Tony Bennett, with a minor paragraph at the end about how his daughter came on stage during the performance to sing two songs. [3]. She has never recorded anything, and a Google search on "Antonia Bennett" only brings up about 1,200 hits [4]. There just isn't enough verification of notability to warrant a separate article at this time. If she ever records a CD that has relatively decent sales, this article can be re-created, but for now, I say either delete it, or merge it into her father's article. --Elonka 10:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Though this is the first formal AfD, be aware that this article was previously deleted by someone from the Wikipedia main office, as a vanity page. So this one that we're debating right now is a re-post. [5]. --Elonka 10:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Madchen Hoch 22:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, verifabily meets WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I 100% agree with the person who wrote "according to Frank Sinatra her father is the greatest singing legend of all time, she has been singing for over 20 years, she is all over Google. I saw her perform on the Today show and The Regis & Kelly Show. If you look on google you will see she sings all over the country. Amazon sells the CD she did with Tom Wopat and another website states her new CD is coming out soon. Plus, she is very young to have accomplished all this! I believe the Today show, The Regis & Kelly Show, The White House, New York Times, Tony Bennett, Tom Wopat, etc. are all not crazy for supporting her
• DELETE*: she's piggybacking on her father's fame. he just had a CD out, and didnt include her , not in a single song!!!, that should tell us why she hasnt made it in the bussiness. she has no talent , imagine even thought she is been signing with her father since she's 4, that means she has been at this for over 30 years and hasnt made it . she only comes up in google searches when she is in some sort of function in which her father is either a guest or a host. no credit of her own. i strongly recommend deletion of this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Witchcat74 (talk • contribs) 23:47, October 17, 2006

• — Possible
  single purpose account: Witchcat74 (talk • contribs
  ) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Comment I don't think achieving notability through "piggybacking" is a WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC offense. That she has talent or not is POV and has nothing to do with qualifying for an article (I say dump Ashlee Simpson by those standards!) --Marriedtofilm 22:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I was going to say merge, but per Húsönd and seeing references, my mind was changed. --Marriedtofilm 22:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see why this article would be deleted - and it certainly makes no sense to merge it with the article of another person! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.196.0.50 (talk • contribs) 18:28, October 20, 2006

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.

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. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hollow godric

No verifiable claims of notability per

• Delete. Barely asserts notability. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Google seems to put this on the borderline of notability. If kept, move to Hollow Godric.--Húsönd 01:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't assert
  notability at the moment. Hello32020 02:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Reads like an ad. If it's kept, it needs to be re-written to have more of a
  neutral point of view.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 02:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete album not listed on CDDB, seems to suggest non-notability Cynical 07:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, notability not sufficiently asserted. NawlinWiki 14:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not seem notable and has only 1170 ghits. --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Speedily deleted as a repost of a non-notable company/location. (aeropagitica) 04:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca's Deli & Catering

A mom-and-pop deli in

• Delete. This could have been a CSD again, as the assertion of notability has to be more than "its significant". There is no reasoning behind it, but we should do this right or we will see this yet again. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as ad spam Bwithh 01:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete: take your pick of spam, recreated material, or non-notable company. Vectro 01:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete A7.--Húsönd 01:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as spam. Hello32020 02:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as a non-notable company. *drew 02:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. So tagged. MER-C 02:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and salt the earth. Resolute 03:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don Chilton

Political hopeful who satisfies neither

• Delete Currently NN. Traces of propaganda.--Húsönd 01:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Right now, it doesn't satisfy
  notability guidelines. Hello32020 02:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Has never held political office in the past, nor done anything else notable, according to his own website. If he has not done anything to date notable, then he does not belong here. --Jayron32 04:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 05:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. Perhpas once he gets elected (if) and does something important.
  ^brendel 07:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Madchen Hoch 22:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all articles about major-party candidates for Congress or other offices of that significance. JamesMLane t c 09:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JamesMLane. C&E is neither policy nor guideline. It is a proposal. It is a misguided proposal. He is notable as a major party candidate — not a garage band — so we not focus on self-promotion questions here. Any potential POV issues are vanilla, and should be dealt with as usual, through editing. We can spare the 1K this takes. Fishboy 10:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Important Fact Question As of this writing, the article (originally created on Oct 8, 2006) says Chilton "is the current Democratic nominee for Arizona's 4th congressional district seat". But according to here, it appears he lost the primary for Arizona's 3rd congressional district on September 12, 2006. What am I missing? -- 17:46, 20 October 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.

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. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don Karg

Political hopeful who satisfies neither

• Delete Currently NN.--Húsönd 01:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Right now, it doesn't satisfy
  notability guidelines. Hello32020 02:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete This and all of the other articles around here on AfD are all written by the same author. He probably is an arizona resident who is creating these articles in
  good faith but is unaware of wikipedia's notablity guidelines. Incidentally, this guy has never one political office before, he has twice been a failed candidate. Definately not notable. --Jayron32 04:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete NN politician. TJ Spyke 05:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Madchen Hoch 22:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all articles about major-party candidates for Congress or other offices of that significance. JamesMLane t c 09:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JamesMLane. C&E is neither policy nor guideline. It is a proposal. It is a misguided proposal. He is notable as a major party candidate — not a garage band — so we don't need to worry about self-promotion here and we can spare the 1K this takes. Fishboy 10:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Durston

Delete, another non-notable candidate who meets neither

• Delete Propaganda for hopeful politician.--Húsönd 01:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete now, but allow it to be recreated if he's elected. RedRollerskate 02:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 05:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rewrite He is a notable person with 32,000 google hits. he has no chance to win but someone should rewrite the article. Electricbassguy 20:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Madchen Hoch 22:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all articles about major-party candidates for Congress or other offices of that significance. JamesMLane t c 09:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JamesMLane. C&E is neither policy nor guideline. It is a proposal. It is a misguided proposal. He is notable as a major party candidate — not a garage band — so we not focus on self-promotion questions here. Any potential POV issues are vanilla, and should be dealt with as usual, through editing. We can spare the 1K this takes. Fishboy 10:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Pierce (politician)

delete, Yet another political hopeful who satisfies neither

• Delete Currently NN.--Húsönd 01:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Right now, it doesn't satisfy
  notability guidelines. Hello32020 02:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete now, but allow it to be recreated if he's elected. RedRollerskate 02:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 05:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and restore if he wins. Cynical 07:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Madchen Hoch 22:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all articles about major-party candidates for Congress or other offices of that significance. JamesMLane t c 09:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JamesMLane. C&E is neither policy nor guideline. It is a proposal. It is a misguided proposal. He is notable as a major party candidate — not a garage band — so we don't need to worry about self-promotion here and we can spare the 1K this takes. Fishboy 10:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Nowell

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected csp |username}}.

This is a biography of a minor musician. I prodded it, and the main contributor deprodded it claiming that it meets

• Delete I'm sure he's a good musician and wish him the best of luck, but it seems to be a vanity page. The writing style is very subjective (seems self-written). Also too long an article, too much info for a subject lacking notability. (Therin83 01:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete It may not meet
  notable, and is vanity. Hello32020 02:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I know him and he is a very active musician in California. It does meet
  single purpose account: Kimalvara (talk • contribs
  ) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

• You conveniently ignored the following:

Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.)--Wafulz 23:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep looked at WP:Music and agree with kimalvara it says any one of the following, he is on IMDB— Possible
  single purpose account: Happyday1954 (talk • contribs
  ) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Again, read what I have in the nomination. It doesn't matter if he's on IMDb- he has do have actually done something notable. --Wafulz 23:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looks legit to me (
  single purpose account: Raytuflin (talk • contribs
  ) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Keep (
  single purpose account: Duccio505 (talk • contribs
  ) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Delete Don't agree that he meets
  QuiteUnusual 16:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, the movie he did the theme for is pretty "independent," if you know what I mean. Doesn't seem notable. Recury 17:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doesn't meet
  WP:MUSIC. Playing trombone in a piece of music for a minor film doesn't meet such criteria. Delta Tango | Talk 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Studio musicians usually aren't notable unless they achieve notability on their own (e.g., Lisa Germano). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

→ Possible bad faith nomination by a

joe 19:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep major player Fg2 06:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep as bad faith nom by possible
  joe 18:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Please
    GRBerry 18:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • However, the odds of someone who has never done any editing under an account also knowing how to do the whole AfD process correctly is pretty low. Also note that I indicated it was a possible SPA, not a given. ···
      joe 19:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • I wouldn't say it's a SPA. Possibly just a new user without much experience. He does bring up a good point, though. This article needs alot of clean-up, and some references to prove it's notability.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 21:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Unclear to me if the company meets the
  GRBerry 18:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • WP:CORP
    links:
    • Sun Chemical puts STC on 'History' map (Dainippon owns Sun Chemical, and is mentioned in the article)
    • Research Frontiers Update on SmartGlass Operations
    • IAL issues new directories of PU systems houses for Asia-Pacific... (requires a subscription to access archive)
  • That was just a quickie 5-minute search. I'm sure others are out there. ···
    joe 19:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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.

• Speedy Delete per G12, currently copyvio from this website. Appears notable though, keep if totally rewritten.--Húsönd 03:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to regular delete.--Húsönd 03:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment The content has been on WP for too long for speedy deletion via copyvio; however, there's no reason that the article can't just be tagged as a copyvio and removed from AfD discussion. -- Kicking222 03:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I forgot the 48 hour requirement. I agree with your suggestion.--Húsönd 03:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

• Keep. She is a notable candidate, having run for the Legislative Council earlier this year (in a ticket that did get people elected), and has a fair chance of election to the Senate in the wake of the rapidly rising Green vote in the state. This could well be of interest to plenty of people in advance of the federal election, and there are plenty of verifiable sources around. Rebecca 03:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply -
    South Australian legislative election, 2006 shows that the Green vote is 4.3% in the Legislative Council (state version of upper house). This would indicate that (aside from state federal differences) the Green vote is actually declining and not rapidly rising and would need a big jump to get to the 14% mark by this time next year for the 2007 Federal election. As to the point that Greens got a state seat - there were 11 available so they needed to top-up at 8.3% whereas for the Senate there are 6, so they need 14.2% - so that's why State success will not automatically translate to FEderal success, as there are less seats available. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 03:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Reply - electoral results are largely irrelevant. She is notable because she is the leader of a political party that will be running in the election.
      Zzymurgy 04:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Delete -- partly because without having won an election she is not particularly notable, and also because the article contains very little of value. Her chances of election are not great in what is a still a Democrat stronghold, and there is nothing here that cannot be recreated within 60 seconds if she does succeed. Jeendan 04:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete losing elections does not make one notable. Unless she is already notable for other reasons, she fails the
  WikiPedia is not a Crystal Ball. --Jayron32 04:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete IF she wins (which seems unlikely based on her previous attempts), then maybe she can have an article. TJ Spyke 05:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Recreate if she wins. Resolute 06:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.--
  talk 09:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Crystal ball -
  talk/email 11:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete non-notable candidate. Haven't we already deleted an article on her in the past? Or was that about her husband Zane Young, who is also a Greens candidate? --Roisterer 14:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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, per

Naconkantari 04:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Andy Stephenson

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected csp |username}}.

He is a non-notable journalist. No evidence of any substantial publications. Internet allegations and rumors of both fraud and foul-play are used to smear his reputation and memory. One of the reasons that notability requirements are in place is to give privacy to friends and family of the deceased.

Note to closing Admin This AfD was spammed here per a note from one of the spammers below. --Tbeatty 15:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing Admin This AfD was also spammed here. NBGPWS 20:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

who below pointed out the conservative underground spam? dman727 presented the link to DU.--Tbeatty 20:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redacted. NBGPWS 21:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to people coming from

WP:RS. New comments go at the bottom to keep the flow of the debate. Also, please make sure you sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). This records the exact account that made the post, as well as the time it was made. Taking the effort to do things the right way increases the chances that other editors will find your arguments compelling.--Rosicrucian 15:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Note to people coming from Conservative Underground -- see above. VoiceOfReason 17:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. --Tbeatty 04:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The only refs on that page that meet
  Aaron 04:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom.
  Morton devonshire 04:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Notability is debatable (refactored personal attack). I attempted to correct the factual inaccuracies some time back, and was never quite successful against anonymous reverters. See this diff of something I removed last night. (refactored personal attack) - Crockspot 04:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails
  WP:BIO.--MONGO 05:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Wow, a non-notable subject that suffers from factual issues. Em-jay-es 05:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Brimba 05:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a google search turns up some nationally notable sources: several Seattle Weekly articles, as well as the subject of an HBO documentary . He's notable. However, someone needs to block the article from anon edits and remove all NPOV problems. It would appear that he is a controverial subject, but that is no reason for deletion. He has been noted in several national sources, and so is notable and verifiable. The article just needs a MAJOR clean-up and protection. --Jayron32 05:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG Keep - His life, career and death are all notable. NBGPWS 07:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.
  single purpose account: Karag (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply
  ]
• STRONG Keep - This article needs a rewrite, not a deletion. His candidacy for Sec. of State in Washington and the fact that national news media reported on him is reason enough to keep the page, regardless of what you may think of him. ChildOfTheMoon83 07:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)*[reply]
• Strong Delete Not notable. He's only notable in the minds of some extremist attempting to exploit his death. I happened across this myself while looking at an extremist web site and it seems they are looking to start a sockpuppet compaign to spam keeps. Additionally his Secretary of State "candidacy" failed to garner any signicant votes[11]Dman727 08:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• StrongKeep Andy's life was notable and his death (refactored personal attack)
  single purpose account: Ken Burch (talk • contribs
  ) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

CommentActually, user made a contribution to a different article before this AFD was opened, so incorrect to claim it could be a "single purpose account"Edison 20:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep — Preceding
  single purpose account: Blackbird71 (talk • contribs
  ) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• StrongKeep Andy Stephenson's case was an online cause celebre of considerable note mainly because he was targetted and smeared by right wing extremists as he lay dying in hospital. To allow these same degenerates to now delete the memory of his death would be a tragedy. - alastair thomspon (co-editor http://scoop.co.nz) — Preceding
  single purpose account: 203.97.96.48 (talk • contribs
  ) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Conditional Keep: this article needs to be rewritten by a non-interested party and locked to prevent tampering. (Therin83 08:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• StrongKeep Andy Stephenson was a huge help to prove election vote tampering by the Black boxes. ([User: Erin Blair]]) 2:14 PM, October 16, 2006. — Preceding
  single purpose account: 209.204.188.208 (talk • contribs
  ) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Delete per nom, Aaron. Also, Crockspot's diff suggests article will be a vandal magnet. CWC(talk) 11:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Multiple verifiable sources per Jayron32. Page can be semi-protected if vandalism is a concern.
  Catchpole 11:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• emphatically, categorically, a STRONGKEEP This is a matter of preserving a historical record of a debate-- whether Andy will ultimately be proved correct or not is irrelevant to the argument. This isn't about whether Andy was right-- the thing is, eventually Andy became a story in his own right. That's why we have to preserve this. Period. (iandb1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.2.39 (talk • contribs)
• Comment Delete comments have been removed here, here by User:Blackbird71 who's only contributions are to this article, reverted to correct state by User:Dman727. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 11:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per Jayron32. - Serpent-A 11:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete as per Crockspot. Too much conspiracy theory and POV to make this article salvageable, and no sign of that changing. I feel this is one article where with the best intentions of any editor, it will descend in to unproven allegations. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 12:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The anticipation that a controversial article will have POV edits is not grounds for deletion. Editors will doubtless have it on their watch list and NPOV statements can be negotiated in the Talk page, per the best practices of Wikipedia.Edison 19:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and per Crockspot, these anon comments are quite annoying as well. Perhaps if its ever proven that "conservatives" ... killed him then I will change my vote. --NuclearZer0 12:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why of course we killed him, right after we caused global warming and before we plotted to steal the 2006 elections.--WinOne4TheGipper 17:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, I might change my vote to keep but rewrite if notability can be established (how close was the secretary of state election, did he generate a lot of mainstream media coverage, etc) GabrielF 13:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Ck4829 14:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails
  WP:BIO, and all the sockpuppet/SPA votes aren't helping. NawlinWiki 14:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, not seeing the notability. Keeping the article to "honor his memory and work" is not a valid reason to keep. The march of the meatpuppets on this article is shameful and Wikipedia does not put articles up to "honor" people, no matter how noble their causes.--Rosicrucian 14:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Andy's work, to have everyone the right to vote and to keep fraud from happening should be honored. Keep the page for his memory. --
  single purpose account: sakabatou19 (talk • contribs
  ) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• STRONG KEEP Andy's work should be respected. This page is an honor to him. --
  single purpose account: Haruka3_2000 (talk • contribs
  ) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Strong keep Andy made a strong contribution with his work (refactor personal attack) — Preceding
  single purpose account: 83.115.31.179 (talk • contribs
  ) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• STRONG KEEP - I don't understand why it needs to be deleted. It should remain up in honor and respect for his hard work. It's also a memorial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.16.234 (talk • contribs)
• STRONG KEEP--Mr. Stephenson's work played a large part in preserving democracy. I can't understand why anyone would want to delete, as Andy worked for all of us----His life revolved around making sure ALL our votes are counted.---Booli—The preceding
  single purpose account: BOOLI (talk • contribs
  ) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

• STRONG KEEP - Absolutely notable. Is subject of a documentary film now in production by Michael Moore, Numerous press mentions while he was alive, radio and television interviews while he was alive including CNN and MSNBC. Was very active in the e-voting seminar circuit. And the circumstances of his death spawned three web sites, several press articles, and much radio discussion. (refactored personal attack) BenBurch 15:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Ben you are so hypocritical, remember when you went on your own little leftist purge on trying to delete the conservative underground page and the protest warrior page, leftist hypocrisy is truly disgusting—The preceding
  unsigned comment was added by 125.237.72.55 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Comment Which documentary? Moore's IMDB page only lists three films in production right now, and none of them seem to mention Andy Stephenson. The "Hacking Democracy" HBO film does not seem to be associated with Michael Moore.--Rosicrucian 15:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Not listed there. I have been cooperating with his production team on the project I refer to, which is on the subject the American medical services delivery system. BenBurch 16:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• So, Ben, you have also claimed that Conservative Underground will become notable when Sicko comes out, (also related to the Stephenson controversy). If you are using future mention in an upcoming film to prove notablility here, to be consistent, you would also have to apply the same standard to the Conservative Underground article, which at the time of the AfD, you did not. I believed you even mentioned at that time that CU would eventually become notable because of this film, and could then have an article on Wiki. So by your own previous arguments, this article should be recreated when and if Sicko makes him notable. Crockspot 20:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• So Stephenson is mentioned in Sicko? If so, do you have a
  verify that? It can't really be included in the article on anecdotal evidence. Beyond that, if Sicko is the film you are referring to, Stephenson does not seem to be the primary focus as you implied.--Rosicrucian 16:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Nope, just my say-so. You can decide if you want to be embarrassed by having removed an article for a notable (but politically embarrassing for right wingers) individual who becomes even more notable upon the release of this film or not. Like all Michael Moore films, the documentary jumps from story to story to build a theme. Andy is one of those stories. People want to bury this story, but it isn't gonna happen. BenBurch 16:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Your "say-so," like anyone else's (yes, even mine), is not good enough, Ben. Jinxmchue 17:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Let's wait for the documentary then. This is an encyclopedia. We would rather be right than early and that includes whether or not an article should be kept. --Tbeatty 17:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems be newsworthy and blogworthy, but doesn't meet encyclopedic level of notability. Deli nk 15:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Especially per Jayron32, and why again was this nominated? That information took moments to find... · XP · 15:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Andy who?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.214.154.104 (talk • contribs)

135.214.154.104 appears to be an open proxy. BenBurch 17:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A whois lookup shows this is registered to Cingular Wireless as part of their dynamic range. Thus, while it is an anonymous IP and part of a dynamic range, I see no evidence it's an open proxy.--Rosicrucian 18:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Needs clean up and better sourcing ("a discussion forum post"? twice???). Jinxmchue 17:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP per BenBurch. Attempting to delete this article about a true American hero is an obvious Stalinist plot by neocons to whitewash Wikipedia of all reference to Republican vile crimes against humanity. PCock 17:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)— PCock (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment Those making "Stalinist" remarks would do well to
  avoid personal attacks.--Rosicrucian 17:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• We can assume good faith even in the face of evidence to the contrary, I suppose.
  unperson out of somebody inconvenient. BenBurch 17:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The reason for these rules is that they further
  civil discourse on Wikipedia, and ensure that people of differing PoVs can establish consensus. Casting aspersions about motives and making this into an emotional argument only raises the wikistress of all involved.--Rosicrucian 17:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• If I were you I would be taking this time to show notability, remove the unprovable conspiracy theories and add reliable sources. before this AfD reaches consensus (if it does). Not to be making assupmtions about the politcal beliefs of those who have voted on this article, in good faith I might add, and who have no interest in your war of words. Like on most AfD's I'm willing to be swayed, but slandering those who disagree with your viewpoint as Stalinists, knocks your chances. regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 17:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No assumptions are being made - they're facts. Several the editors involved are part of what some consider to be a 'Conservative Hit Squad' here on Wiki. Crockspot, who is in constant contact with Tbeatty, nominated another researcher on voter fraud, Bev Harris, for speedy deletion on the same day. Two voter fraud investigators being nominated for deletion on the same day, by two proven activist conservative editors? [12] [13] NBGPWS 20:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I recommend that the vote of any editor with less than 500 total edits to en.wikipedia be ignored. :o - Crockspot 17:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • actually, the standard for sockpuppets is 50 edits which would apply to almost all of the SPA accounts above.—The preceding
    unsigned comment was added by Tbeatty (talk • contribs) 17:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC).[reply
    ]
    • I know, I just dropped an extra 0 in there for the benefit of BenBurch. He has enjoyed putting high edit count bars on his past afd's, and I rather enjoy watching the steam come out of his ears. - Crockspot 17:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to second this recommendation. It is quite obvious that there is now an influx of sockpuppet "votes" (most likely thanks to a post on the Democrat Underground - remember, DUers, this is not an actual vote where the majority wins) with ridiculous rants about "obvious Stalinist plot[s] by neocons to whitewash Wikipedia of all reference to Republican vile crimes against humanity." Jinxmchue 18:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I have it on good authority that this AfD is going to be closed by a
      Aaron 19:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • An editor who makes a good argument based firmly upon our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines will be counted, however new xe is. Equally, an editor whose argument is that "we must have a memorial" (contrary to our Wikipedia articles are not memorials policy) or whose argument is wholly based upon personal testimony about future events (contrary to our verifiability and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball policies) will not count, however many edits xe has. Uncle G 19:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, properly cited article that establishes weak notability Valoem ^talk 18:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Page Break 2

• Super Duper Strong Keep Great american heroes like Andy should be memorialized into stone, rather than washed down the memory hole of the Bush dictatorship. You people pushing for delete should be ashamed of yourselves. How can you sleep at night? It also possible that the people recommending delete were also part of fringe right that contributed to Andys death by denying him the funds for surgery, and now they wish to erase that stain on their soul.—The preceding
  unsigned comment was added by 64.102.254.33 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC).[reply
  ]

• I sleep very well on my Rovomatic Adjustable Bushbot Bed, given to me personally by KKKarl in payment for killing Andy. It's super duper comfy. - Crockspot 20:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Damn. Someone went and used the Super Duper on us. I guess the debate is over. Dman727 20:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete
  Wildthing61476 19:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The blogs are not strong sources for notability, but the article from the Seattle newspaper establishes most of the disputed statements about his work on showing hackability of electronic voting systems, and the circumstances of the interference with fundraising to pay for his final medical expenses. There is also a reference from a current HBO movie in which his contribution is documented. Notability rather than need for a memorial is a good basis for keeping the article.Edison 19:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete After sifting through this AFD and looking at references here and in the article, it's clear that the subject of this article has been the subject of some national media attention. But this does not automatically bestow the level of notability necessarily for inclusion in an encyclopedia. I don't see the media attention as signficant, or the newstory as much more than transitory. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• *STRONG KEEP* Andy is clearly notable as any thinking person would know. Attempts to delete this fine man are evidence of the hand of Rove at work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.159.148.121 (talk • contribs)

• Comment if you cannot explain why Andy Stephenson is notable, or reference your vote to another editor who you agree with, then no he is not "clearly notable" for the purposes of this AfD.--Rosicrucian 20:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per Jayron32. The HBO movie is a good enough claim of notability for me. However, this needs cleanup and better sources, blogs and web forums aren't usually good sources. BryanG^(talk) 20:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Just out of curiosity, would it matter to you if he was the subject of the movie, or just got a passing mention in it? It might matter to me and change my vote from delete to keep, if he was the subject of the movie; but that doesn't seem to be the case based on the reference in the article. Deli nk 20:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, the question of how much he's in the movie (which doesn't come out until next month, I believe) is why my !vote was weak in the first place. BryanG^(talk) 21:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would not. Personally I've been mentioned in a few newspaper articles and even was referenced in a documentary several years ago. However Im far from noteable. I don't believe that anecdotal references in media are equivalant to being noteworthy. Dman727 21:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I still support a keep for this article, but the whitewash being attempted here is NOT helping the cause. Merely yelling that he is worthy is NOT the way to get the article kept. Even if hundreds of people came down on the side of this subject's sainthood, it does NOT make the subject worthy. CITE SOURCES. NATIONAL MEDIA. RESPECTED THIRD PARTY INFO. That sort of thing. Now I did my part finding stuff on a guy I frankly couldn't give two s&!#$ about. If all you people are SO hell bent on getting the article kept, do the research, cite respected sources, rewrite the article, and make it up to standard. Otherwise, just let it go. All you are going to do is cause the admins here to delete and protect the article from ever being recreated, which would not serve your purposes. Also, WikiPedia is built on community concensus. Become an active part of the community if you want your opinions to be recognized. Merely getting 100 random anonymous people to spam this AfD with requests to keep will NOT make it happen. --Jayron32 20:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I ask that the nominator, Tbeatty, document his assertion. "One of the reasons that notability requirements are in place is to give privacy to friends and family of the deceased." If true, hundreds of articles on people with backgrounds as varied as Polly Klaas and Jerry Garcia may need deletion as mentioning their untimely and tragic deaths 'violates their family's privacy rights'. NBGPWS 21:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment We seem to have been visited by some sock puppets posting lampoons of how they think a DUer would respond to this topic... Not sure if it is an attempt at humor or an attempt to discredit those who support KEEP. BenBurch 21:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No, they are dead on as to how DUers are responding to this topic. All one needs to do for proof of this is read the Democrat Underground thread[14] that brought you all here. Jinxmchue 21:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was brought here by my watchlist... BenBurch 22:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. More coincidence, I guess. Jinxmchue

• That's kind of funny. I thought the same thing, except that I thought you were one of the lampooners with your original Stalinist comment.[15]  :) --Ed (Edgar181) 23:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I ask an investigation be started into the strange 'coincidence' of two of the best-known voter fraud investigators being nominated for deletion on the same day, by two well-known conservative activist Wiki editors, three weeks before national elections where voting fraud is a major concern! [16] [17] NBGPWS 21:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If you have a dispute, that is a matter for
  dispute resolution rather than requesting an investigation while in the middle of an AfD.--Rosicrucian 21:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I think your time would be better spent researching and improving these articles to keep them on Wiki than to worrying about some imagined "Vast-Ring Wing Conspiracy" designed to cover up imagined voter fraud. Jinxmchue 21:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing 'imagined' about this orchestrated effort to purge info by activist Conservative editors:

"Someone removed your prod from the Andy Stephenson article. You'll have to do an AfD.

Andy Stephenson deletion discussion is --Tbeatty 04:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC) Check out the diff I posted on the AfD for a good snort. Crockspot 05:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)"[reply

]

NBGPWS 23:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what exactly is the conspiracy? I "prod"ed the article prior to AfD. (if you don't know what "prod" is, go find it). He let me know that the "prod" failed. AfD is the next step. --Tbeatty 23:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - it's just sheer coincidence that two MAJOR reseachers into voting fraud got nominated for deletion for non-notability by you two on the SAME DAY. Out of the THOUSANDS of questionable articles, you chose those two to nominate for deletion. No agenda there! [18] [19] NBGPWS 00:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... let's think how else we could explain this while still

tjstrf 01:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Smearing editors and accusing them of having an agenda is not what AfD is for. Again, if you wish to pursue this, follow the steps of

dispute resolution.--Rosicrucian 01:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh Cool. I didn't know Bev Harris was up for AfD. But since the proposals in the history were speedy and prod (both non-voting deletion processes) I will have to wait for the full-blown AfD. Thanks for the heads-up though so I can add Bev Harris to my watchlist. --Tbeatty 07:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• See, that's one thing about having an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. People's biases can and do affect it. Have you been a paragon of neutrality? I certainly doubt it. Even I have had times where I have not been entirely neutral about topics. And that's where another thing about having an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit comes in. Other people can have a say in it and balance out things. Compromise is important here. As far as your accusations go, I would suggest you drop them as they are unprovable and inflammatory. They will result in nothing but back and forth sniping and bad feelings. Jayron32 and others have improved the article considerably since it was nominated for deletion. Why didn't you do anything to improve it? That would've been considerably more helpful to your cause than making these ridiculous accusations. Jinxmchue 14:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• First, allow me to express how delighted and honored I am to be referred to as a "well-known conservative activist Wiki editor". My father is smiling in Heaven. Second, I inserted a {{prod-bio}} into Bev Harris mainly because I knew (refactored personal attack) , but it certainly helped that the article did not assert Ms. Harris' notability, and was very nearly unsourced. I didn't discuss it or coordinate it with anyone else. The person who removed my tag has done some improvement, so in the end, it was a positive move. Third, I welcome any investigation. I am protected by Teh Hand of Rove, and your Fitz are belong to us. - Crockspot 03:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• comment the existance of sockpuppets or strawmen in support of or opposed to this article has NO BEARING on its inherent notability. The identity or political leanings of people involved in either the nomination or the debate have NO BEARING on the the subjects notability. Does the subject show up in the national press/media? Is the subject notable for the things they show up for? If yes, the subject should stay; and probably be protected from anon edits given the level of controversy. If no, the subject should be deleted, and also be protected from recreation. Either way, the personalities of the editors involved in these discussion should have NO BEARING on the results of said discussions. --Jayron32 21:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It appears that there are adquate references which are verifiable and reliable to establish Stephenson's notability for his work regarding the weaknesses of "black box" voting and his running for secretary of state of Washington.
  single purpose account: Kitty Hammond (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply
  ]

• Merge, against inclusion in Wikipedia He may merit mention in a relavent article on the subject of electronic voting fraud. The individual himself is not notable. (note to closing admin: this !vote has a very specific title because I wish it to be treated in a specific manner during the closing. In other words, this merge should not be counted as a psuedo-keep.) --
  tjstrf 22:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete The most notable thing about him is the conspiracy theory, which is completely unverifiable. Rumors, conspiracy and inuendo do not belong in an encyclopedia. Resolute 23:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Really? MORE than half of the Vince Foster article is about the kooky right wing barking moonbat conspiracy theories that Clinton had Foster killed! NBGPWS 00:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Then go edit the Vince Foster article. If you feel that another article needs work, then by all means take it on! However other article have nothing to do with this particle article.Dman727 01:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Unlike this article's theories about Stephenson's death, the theories about Foster's death are at least well-sourced. Additionally, talk of Foster's death was widespread at the time. The theories about Stephenson's death are limited to far-left forums like DU. Jinxmchue 14:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• When Stephenson gets two independant counsels to investigate his death, I will be the first to vote Keep. Even if there is no conspiracy. --Tbeatty 01:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable, despite the inadequacies of the article. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I did some minor searching on Stephensons candidacy for Secretary of State. It appears to be unnoteworthy and Stephenson did not garner any signifant percentage of vote.[20]12.159.148.121

Given that I do not find his duties at BBV noteworthy, nor his candidacy, I've revised my opinion to Strong Delete Dman727 01:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The website you are linking to contains General Election results, not Primary. Keep in mind Stephenson ran as a Democrat, and dropped out on June 26, 2004 (presumably around the time of the primaries), although I don't know if that was before or after the Primary, or what percentage of the vote he earned.

I stand by my "Strong Keep", but I believe now more than ever the article badly needs a NPOV, as well as some locks to dissuade right and left-wingers (and their sockpuppets) from vandalizing it. It's also worth mentioning that a friend and supporter of his, William Rivers Pitt, publicly called into question the operation and circumstances of his death. Stephenson's SOS candidacy, the HBO documentary and the presence of his name and activism in notable news sources convinces me that this should still be kept. But some drastic measures need to be in place so that this page (and perhaps other political pages as well) is protected from extremist vandals, whether they frequent DU, FR or any other blog or message board. ChildOfTheMoon83 03:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a journalist, I thought the situation that Stephenson was experiencing with regard to those who hassled him on his deathbed was curious enough to devote an entire article on it See http://www.coastalpost.com/05/06/01.html I personally spoke with Peter Angelos and he confirmed that he used his influence to help make Stephenson's cutting edge pancreas operation at Johns Hopkins Med Center a reality. I think that Andy Stephenson was and will always be one of the voices for truth, at a time when the mainstream media would not know truth if it came up and bit them on their butt. If Vince Foster has a wikipedia entry, and he is only mourned at this point by his family, then Andy Stephenson should have an entry - he is mourned by his family of thousands of voting activists across the country. When I originall y posted the story at my newspaper, I truly believed that the right wing cabal had influenced PayPal to withhold the needed funds. Since then I have learned that that version of PayPal did that to many of its subscribers - they withheld monies probably just to have the interest on the funds. EBay has since acquired PayPal and it now operates in a more legitimate manner. Currently Stephenson will be honored with mention in a HBO documentary on the election process in the day of electronic machinery. He is also someone that Dorothy Faddiman focuses on in her documentary "Stealing America". The Coastal Post comes out once a month in hard copy that is sent to 18,000 subscribers in Marin County, California. It also is on the web. I own all copy that I write, once it is out and on the newstand. My opinion is to StrongKeep —The preceding

• comment I don't expect the previous contributor to return, since he is not a regular editor, and is only here to make this singular plea. I will still make these comments for anyone who cares to read them since they bear clarification over why the above arguement, while obviously heart felt does NOT MAKE A STRONG KEEP CASE. Comparing the
  verifiability of the information in the article. Idi Amin is not missed by many people, while my Grandmother was really one of the nicest people I have ever met. No one would claim that my grandmother needs an article more than does Idi Amin. Simply argueing that because Foster was not well liked, while Andy Stephenson was a true patriot does NOT have any bearing on whether one should be kept and the other deleted. A quick perusal of the Vince Foster article indicates that it is HEAVILY referenced to NATIONAL MEDIA sources. Now, if you will note, I have voted and am still voting keep. I may even (if I have the time) try to improve the article. But to all of you people who claim to know and care about Andy Stephenson (and honestly, I could give a flying f^(& about him) if you want to keep the article, FIND REFERNCES and IMPROVE THE ARTICLE so it will meet the already well-established standards. You could do no better than to look at the Vince Foster article and seeing how it is done there, since that is an EXCELLENTLY SOURCED article. --Jayron32 03:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• comment A quick perusal of the article you referenced at length should have provided you adequate evidence that the author, Carol Sterritt, is a she, not a he as you wrote. (unless you happen to know this particular Carol to be a man like Carol O'Connor) NBGPWS 04:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• reply Fine, its written by a she. I never assigned a gender to the author. I DID assign a gender to Mr. Foster, who I believe still qualifies as a he. --Jayron32 04:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Coincidentally, a different anon editor invoked the Foster article on my talk page today. I, too, pointed out the vast divide in the quality of the sourcing between the articles. Part of the problem is that the controversy surrounding Andy was largely played out on blogs, which are, at best, sometimes allowed as primary sources only. The few secondary sources (I'm thinking of the Ferrari article), are not accurate, in my opinion, and based upon posts of hers that I read at the time. How do you reliably source such a thing? I don't think you can. Crockspot 04:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed the article Well, I did my best. Check out the article now. For extensive explanation of my fixes,. please see the
  WP:MOS to a point. Its still really stubby, but the article should have enough verifiable references to allow it to be kept, as long as the DU people don't ruin it by mucking the article up again (if they really are his supporters, why not play by the rules and try to get the article kept???) --Jayron32 04:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Please assume good faith and don't bite the newbies. "only here to make this singular plea." is assuming good faith only if a new editor stated that was his intention. I expect a number of Wikipedia editors were drawn here by a desire to edit one article and went on to edit thousands, just as voters are lured to register to vote by one wedge issue but go on voting.Edison 06:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I make an unqualified apology. I do hope that all of these people who commented do stay and learn to become good WikiPedia editors. It would be unfortunate if their only exposure to WikiPedia editing is through this highly controversial topic. They all seem to have something to add to the topic, and I only wish they would do so in a way that was more constructive and actually improved the article in question, or added to this debate in a meaningful way. However, I do admit that the comment you note was in bad taste on my part, and I retract it. --Jayron32 06:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Not notable - it is now well sourced and the pure fiction has been removed. But he is still not a notable person. He isn't extensively published (notability for a journalist) and he doesn't have multiple mainstream media coverage (notability for an activist). Tbeatty 04:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• reply Fair enough. The HBO documentary and Seattle Weekly citations do provide the mainstream portion. Multiple is weak, I will admit (OK, its only 2). But I have given the articles supporters a head start. Surely all those people who know and love the subject so much have references at the ready (CNN, NYTimes, Newsweek, or even widely read local papers) and can continue the work I have done. If not, though I still vote keep, it may be beyond my help at this point. --Jayron32 05:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• In the article I see 3 articles in West Coast local papers, 1 each in the New York Times, the Washington Post and The Guardian (London), one story on Fox News plus an HBO movie. Several of these mention his national campaigning for voter verified paper trails and his Secretary of State candidacy. Pretty impressive notability compared to many WP bio articles. Edison 07:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There are other articles on electronic voting. It seems a mention in those would be adequate and deserving. Maybe
  Black Box Voting?. --Tbeatty 05:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment to closing admin: When considering Tbeatty comments, please note their contribution history. POV/advocacy warrior for right wing American political activism. · XP · 08:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to closing admin:I wholeheartedly concur with the above comments by XP. A look at Tbeatty's contributions on Wiki will find his activity almost exclusively limited to highly charged political topics. NBGPWS 08:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to closing admin: True or not, that has nothing to do with the arguments he presents here and should not discolour your evaluation of the debate. --
  tjstrf 09:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• You are more than welcome to file an RfC or ArbCom if you feel that strongly about it. You may also take your complaints to my talk page or any of the admin noticeboards if you wish. But commenting here is not appropriate and I have warned you on your talk page to AGF. --Tbeatty 09:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You should hit them both with {{
  Aaron 16:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Please quit refactoring people's comments that aren't personal attacks. That could be viewed as censorship, or worse. Don't you support 'freedom of speech'? NBGPWS 09:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Page Break 4

• comment This is one of the WORST bad faith nominations I've ever seen. HBO's 'Hacking Democracy', which prominently features Andy Stephenson debuts Nov 2. [21] That ALONE established notability. Also, the nominator's justification is fallicious on two counts, and should be ruled as such. Andy was not primarily known as 'journalist' as the nominator claimed, but as an activist. The nominator has also failed to defend his claim that "notability requirements are in place is to give privacy to friends and family of the deceased." If that were true NO individual who died prematurely and/or tragically would have the circumstances of their death discussed. No info surrounding the deaths of Curt Cobain, Polly Klaas, Jerry Garcia or HUNDREDS of other persons could be discussed if Wiki were to follow this anomalous and aberrant line of reasoning. NBGPWS 06:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment He is non-notable. You cite the HBO synopsis of the Bev Harris HBO program. Stephenson is mentioned once alongside the non-notable
  Black Box Voting has an article in Wikipedia and anything relevant about Stephenson can be included there. Please stop casting aspersions on the motivation for the AfD. It is a form of personal attack. --Tbeatty 07:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

USER Tbeatty When are you going to defend, or retract your assertion that: "notability requirements are in place is to give privacy to friends and family of the deceased."? NBGPWS 08:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already have but you can see Jimbo's response to a similiar question. In that case, the hubsand of a non-notable person asked that her bio be deleted. A user made a similiar assertion to what you are making. --Tbeatty 09:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So now YOU are speaking on behalf of Andy's family and are claiming that they don't want his death discussed - or you just PRESUME this by extrapolating from the TOTALLY different situation involving the staffer of Joe Scarborough who was found dead, and her surving husband's express wishes that her death not be discussed? Which is it? NBGPWS 09:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never claimed any such thing nor is your false choice ever been supported. I said One of the reasons that notability requirements are in place is to give privacy to friends and family of the deceased. That's it. It's a simple truth. Stephenson is non-notable. Being a non-notable person affords him and his family a level of privacy from scurilous charges about fraud and fake deaths being repeated on Wikipedia. Further, the notability requirements of Wikipedia should keep him completely anonymous except for perhaps a passing reference in

Black Box Voting.--Tbeatty 09:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

"To be notable in general, he needs multiple writeups in major publications for multiple events." Incorrect, and misleading. If this was the case, we would have no article on

John Mark Karr or other "one hit media wonders". Every write up was due to one thing: his made up confession. You are mistaken. · XP · 08:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

No, I don't think so. I doubt John Mark Karr will survive AfD once the newsiness dies down. Unless he is charged or convicted of a crime, he is non-notable and he will not be in Wikipedia for long. But of course, this AfD is about the non-notableness of Stephenson, not Karr. --Tbeatty 08:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments:

1. We would, of course, merge useful info (mostly refs) into
   Black Box Voting
   .
2. Barring some investigative reporting by a
   original research
   means all we can say about the poor guy's death is "some people claimed X but other people claimed Y", which will satisfy very few people.

CWC(talk) 08:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Tbeatty: Please show me where in WP:Notability People you find evidence of policy supporting your claim: "One of the reasons that notability requirements are in place is to give privacy to friends and family of the deceased." Wikipedia:Notability people NBGPWS 13:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to NBGPWS This is in

Wildthing61476 13:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Multiple MSM mentions, plus 19,500 Ghits for "Andy Stephenson" + voting, plus HBO documentary = Notability. NBGPWS 14:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is an AfD. This is about whether this article is encyclopedic and notable by Wikipedia's standards. There is no standard by which we can judge whether this is a "good faith" or "bad faith" nomination, nor should we, because Wikipedia requests that we
  Administrators' Noticeboard to end it the hard way.--Rosicrucian 15:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Second I would like to reiterate Rosicrusians point. The notability of the subject is INDEPENDANT of the political activism, political positions, rudeness, bad faith, or any other fact about any editor here or anywhere else. Either he is notable or he is not. Provide evidence to support your view, and leave it at that. Opinion or evidence of perceived wrongdoing by another editor does NOT have ANY bearing on the article at hand or this AfD and should be left to other venues at WikiPedia, such as talk pages or RfCs. Such discussions should not be carried on here. --Jayron32 18:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the article doesn't demonstrate a level of notability. The material the person has written may be relevant in some articles, and the person may be worth mentioning in short somewhere, but I don't believe the subject warrants an article of its own.
  First of all, this deletion debate's journey started with the wrong foot - every time someone posts "hey, everybody, vote for/against deletion" in some forum, the whole debate gets rickety. Consider this from my point of view: I'm uncaffeinated enough to not be able to read the above discussions; AfD is supposed to be a simple place to follow. A pre-emptive hug of consolation to whoever admin has to close this mess!
  That said, I need to evaluate the current state of the article: Okay, so here we have a journalist... who has done some mudslinging at voting machines... and failed to get elected to an office... and died. In my opinion, that doesn't yet pass the "more important than average professor" gut feeling, even if you have media mentions and like. There's lots of journalists in this world, there's lots of prominent electronic voting critics. There's a whole bunch of also-ran election candidates, who have consistently been deemed nonnotable (for that merit alone, barring other claims of fame) in Wikipedia. Lacking these, this is more of a merge material or something completely forgettable. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the clarity, the "prof test" is at
    WP:PROF. My point is that if there were similar test for journalists, this person wouldn't pass it. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep. Not sure what all the fuss is about here. The article is abundantly sourced and the ample sources substantiate sufficient notability. Gamaliel 16:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per
  WP:BIO, the good faith of many of the voters here both pro- and con- is plainly questionable, this article should never have been nominated for deletion, and it should be kept. VoiceOfReason 17:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]