Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Mcilvaine: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:41, 7 September 2006

Bob Mcilvaine

Non-notable bio. Basically a relative of a 9/11 victim who believes 9/11 conspiracy theories. He gets all of 183 google hits (this is a mistake - see below) [1]. This is part of a campaign by User:Striver to create stubs for a gazillion non-notable 9/11 conspiracy nuts. GabrielF 02:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I made a mistake and googled the son, not the father. "Bob Mcilvaine" gets all of 939 google hits. [2] GabrielF 02:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn bio. --MCB 06:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has been on the panel of prominent 9/11TM metings and has been prominently interviewd by international media. He is also included in a movie that is on its way. Not to mention that he is a 9/11 victim family. He most certanly meets the notability criteria of wikipedia. --Striver 12:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CNN coverage--Striver 13:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just added more news coverage of him. --Striver 13:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And more about his son... no way this article is going to be deleted now... --Striver 13:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So he's on a barely notable panel, may be featured in a non-notable movie and is one of thousands of 9/11 victim's families. That doesn't establish notability. In the articles that you mention he's generally one of several people quoted for a particular position. Further, I've been quoted in a handful of newspaper articles do, does that make me inherently notable? GabrielF 13:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CNN? Any international one? If yes, they you are also notable per WP:N: "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)"--Striver 13:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete conspiracy theory nonsense POV cruftist..simply not notable.--MONGO 13:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Above vote has been reported to ANI. Just FYI. --Striver 13:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MONGO --Doc 14:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sub-trivial conspiracist minutia. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
very Weak keep He isn't even that prominent in the 9/11 truth movement and most of these news mentions are minor but there are still a lot of mentions in the news. JoshuaZ 14:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep seems he has become a celebrity victim, frequently called upon by the media for a nice soundbite. --Salix alba (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notice how the "official" version adovates of 9/11 (most notably MONGO) are voting to delete this article. This is a common tactic they have used repeatedly in an attempt to remove POV which does not conform to the "official" version of 9/11 and their own POV. Also, as per: User:Striver.
User:GabrielF bias is clear calling them: "9/11 conspiracy nuts". They may actually be conspiracy nuts, but that is no reason to delete the article. Where does it say in wikipedia policy notable "nuts" can't have wikipages?
User:GabrielF, in initiating the AfD, originally stated incorrectly that he has 183 hits on google, he also failed to mention that this page has 17 sources, including the NYTimes, CNN, The independent, USA Today, even the conservatives beloved freerepublic.com. How is someone who is mentioned in all of these reputble sources Non-notable?
I would suggest instead of deleting other peoples referenced work, those who advocate the "official" version of 9/11 spend more time sourcing their articles, and help build wikipedia, instead of deleting other wikipedians referenced hard work whose POV they disagree with. Using wikipolicy to push your own POV is not why wikipolicy was created. Travb (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cranks who get substantial media coverage. Who cares if he buys the conspiracy theory, that's not what this is about. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 *'''very Weak keep''' He isn't even that prominent in the 9/11 truth movement and most of these news mentions are minor but there are still a lot of mentions in the news. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 *'''keep''' seems he has become a celebrity victim, frequently called upon by the media for a nice soundbite. --[[User:Salix alba|Salix alba]] ([[User talk:Salix alba|talk]]) 14:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Keep''' Notice how the "official" version adovates of 9/11 (most notably MONGO) are voting to delete this article.  This is a common tactic they have used repeatedly in an attempt to remove POV which does not conform to the "official" version of 9/11 and their own POV.  Also, as per: User:Striver. User:GabrielF bias is clear calling them: "9/11 conspiracy nuts". They may actually be conspiracy nuts, but that is no reason to delete the article.  Where does it say in wikipedia policy notable "nuts" can't have wikipages? User:GabrielF stated incorrectly that he has 183 hits, he also failed to mention that this page has 17 sources, including the NYTimes, CNN, The independent, USA Today, even the conservatives beloved freerepublic.com.  How is someone who is mentioned in all of these articles Non-notable.  I would suggest instead of deleting other peoples referenced work, those who advocate the "official" version of 9/11 spend more time sourcing their articles, and help '''build wikipedia''', instead of deleting other wikipedians referenced hard work who they disagree with. Using wikipolicy to push your own POV is not why wikipolicy was created. [[User:Travb|Travb]] ([[User talk:Travb|talk]]) 14:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' Notice how the "official" version adovates of 9/11 (most notably MONGO) are voting to delete this article.  This is a common tactic they have used repeatedly in an attempt to remove POV which does not conform to the "official" version of 9/11 and their own POV.  Also, as per: User:Striver. <br>User:GabrielF bias is clear calling them: "9/11 conspiracy nuts". They may actually be conspiracy nuts, but that is no reason to delete the article.  Where does it say in wikipedia policy notable "nuts" can't have wikipages? <br>User:GabrielF, in initiating the AfD, originally stated incorrectly that he has 183 hits on google, he also failed to mention that this page has 17 sources, including the NYTimes, CNN, The independent, USA Today, even the conservatives beloved freerepublic.com.  How is someone who is mentioned in all of these reputble sources Non-notable?<br>I would suggest instead of deleting other peoples referenced work, those who advocate the "official" version of 9/11 spend more time sourcing their articles, and help '''build wikipedia''', instead of deleting other wikipedians referenced hard work whose POV they disagree with. Using wikipolicy to push your own POV is not why wikipolicy was created. [[User:Travb|Travb]] ([[User talk:Travb|talk]]) 14:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' cranks who get substantial media coverage.  Who cares if he buys the conspiracy theory, that's not what this is about. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 14:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)