Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Normal Bob Smith (2nd nomination)

Normal Bob Smith

Normal Bob Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Normal Bob Smith

Neutral bump from speedy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-20 20:06Z

• Note This was recreated from a previously deleted article. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Normal Bob Smith)-Deathawk 20:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete The old AfD is over a year old, but that doesn't mean one can just up and recreate the article. Take it to WP:DRV. Danny Lilithborne 22:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Bob Smith is a cultural phenomenon and appeared in many media. Deleting this article looks very much like censorship. --Djudge 00:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 23:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep While Normal Bob Smith is controversial and reviled in many circles, he is a cultural icon. This article is valid and should be kept.--Elektrared 00:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 23:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Bob Smith is indeed a controversial figure. However, he is also a culturally relevant person, and so his article should be kept. This has been the accepted method taken with other internet personalities. For example, Sean Riley and George Ouzanian, AKA Seanbaby and Maddox, respectively, have Wikipedia pages. Bob Smith is as famous as either of these two. This article should not have been deleted in the first place.--Juppongatana 18:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete recreated article. IrishGuy ^talk 01:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I am the author and I created this article from scratch (except for the Urban Outfitters and Passion of the Christ entries) and have no personal involvement with Bob Smith, other than I think he's noteworthy. -- alienlovesong 01:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Subject is notable and relevant. -- Chisrule 02:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 23:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete No solid assertions of notability, resposted content. To Juppongatana, note that just because there are articles on Maddox and Seanbaby does not mean NBS deserves one. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 02:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I've heard of him, at least. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 12:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: the primary notability criterion does apply: One notability criterion shared by nearly all of the guidelines, as well as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not1, is the criterion that a subject is notable if it has been been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. He has, for example, been the subject of this article in the Washington Times, or this article on the side of a catholic organisation with 60 employee. There have been other occasions when he made it to the news, but I think those two references, in addition to the high google-ranking of his page, should be enough for a keep. Sceptic Watcher 13:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 23:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The criteria for keeping this article has been met. I don't see why this is such an issue, unless one objects to the subject matter itself, which can be seen as disrespectful and controversial -- and deleting it on that issue would constitute censorship. Chompsillisay 18:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 23:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: Notable 65.125.163.221 20:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 23:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• No way sockpuppets and SPAs will make us let the page stay and rot on WP. Speedy Delete per these concerns and prior AFD. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I assure you that my account is no sockpuppet of anyone. I only now did start to work on the english wikipedia, but if you are so distrustful, you can look for my account Skeptischer Beobachter in the german wikipedia, where I work on articles about Tibetan Buddhism since about two months. I think before you make such accusations, you should have a way to verify them. With the very same right, I could assume that you are a sockpuppet. Sceptic Watcher 11:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Noone is accusing you of anything. Slgrandson spoke of sockpuppets and SPAs (link and italics added by me). Fact of the matter is that you only have three edits, two of which are to this AfD and the other one being to the article's talk page. In such cases, it is within the discretion of the closing admin to discount such votes. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 11:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I admit that I was not aware of the meaning of that abbreviation and unfortunately did not find it. That's why I was only answering to the sockpuppet-part. It may indeed be possible that my account will be a SPA - I don't know yet if I will also work on Tibetan Buddhism and Atheism here. Sceptic Watcher 12:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

So the main reason for deleting this article now is not for lack of relevance but because is was deleted before. According to the rules it can't be simply recreated. The deletion can be reviewed and if there is support the admins can undelete the original article. I think this is a good point. My question for the experienced editors: can we ask for a review of the deletion and does support from ASP's for undeletion count? --Djudge 13:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You can request a deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Whether new users are in good faith or single purpose accounts has to be determined case by case. Whether their opinions are counted (AfD is not a vote) has to be determined by the closing admin. If the new users come with good arguments and make valid points, their opinions will be taken into consideration. But if they simply stuff the ballot, their votes are usually discounted. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 15:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I've made several edits to philosophy/religion articles. I do not see the reason why this article is being considered "irrelevant". No reason to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.82.113 (talk • contribs)

Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 16:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The man behind the #1 Google result for "Jesus", as well as being a keynote speaker at some of the most important atheist conventions in America and the feature character of a nationally-recognized and reviewed movie has no reason to be deleted. He is far more influencial and popular than many of his Christian counterparts who have their own pages. See Andy Braunston, Mike MacIntosh, and Jon Courson among others. I hate to accuse and yell the word "censorship" but I don't know if it's just a coincidence the main campaigner for deletion has done a huge volume of work on christian and christianity-related topics. --Meneitherfabio 17:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Have I? Where? And how does that matter? Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 17:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Your numerous contributions to topics like Catholic Church in the Netherlands, , Lutheran Theological Seminary, et. al, may be only circumstantial and coincidental, but you are by far the most vocal critic of this entry and it seems a bit suspicious as to your real motives. As a neutral third party I can tell you Normal Bob Smith's noteriety in the USA is adequate and if the article needs to be re-written to avoid deletion on a technicality, you are definately approaching this from the wrong angle.--Meneitherfabio 18:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep! This person really does exist, and has achieved some notariety whether or not you like him. Shall we start deleting kidney beans and migraine entries next? What is this, Nazi Germany? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.68.113 (talk • contribs)

Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 18:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)