Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Stephenson

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 WP:BIO. Naconkantari 04:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Andy Stephenson 1.1 Arbitrary Page Break 1 1.2 Arbitrary Page Break 2 1.3 Arbitrary Page Break 3 1.4 Arbitrary Page Break 4

[edit] Andy Stephenson

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)

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

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

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

Note to people coming from Democratic Underground -- Notability and Verifiability have very specific meanings in the context of Wikipedia, and this is especially important to understand when participating in an AfD. If you want to make a case for saving this article, please familiarize yourself with WP:BIO and 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)

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

• Delete as nominator. --Tbeatty 04:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The only refs on that page that meet WP:RS are the two obituary links. --Aaron 04:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Morton devonshire 04:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• Delete fails WP:BIO.--MONGO 05:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wow, a non-notable subject that suffers from factual issues. Em-jay-es 05:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Brimba 05:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• STRONG Keep - His life, career and death are all notable. NBGPWS 07:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Karag 07:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Karag (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• 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)*
• 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[1]Dman727 08:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• StrongKeep Andy's life was notable and his death (refactored personal attack) Ken Burch 00:35, 16 October 2006.— Possible 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)

• Strong keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blackbird71 (talk • contribs).— Possible 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) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.97.96.48 (talk • contribs).— Possible 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))
• 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.204.188.208 (talk • contribs).— Possible 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)
• Keep Multiple verifiable sources per Jayron32. Page can be semi-protected if vandalism is a concern. Catchpole 11:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• 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) —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)
• Weak Keep per Jayron32. - Serpent-A 11:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)
• Strong Keep Ck4829 14:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO, and all the sockpuppet/SPA votes aren't helping. NawlinWiki 14:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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. --sakabatou19— Possible 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. --Haruka3_2000— Possible 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) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.115.31.179 (talk • contribs).— Possible 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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 unsigned comment was added by BOOLI (talk • contribs) 14:59, 16 October 2006. — Possible single purpose account: BOOLI (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

[edit] Arbitrary Page Break 1

• 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)

• 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).
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• So Stephenson is mentioned in Sicko? If so, do you have a reliable source that can be used to 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)

• 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)

• Your "say-so," like anyone else's (yes, even mine), is not good enough, Ben. Jinxmchue 17:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• 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)

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

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)

• Weak Keep Needs clean up and better sourcing ("a discussion forum post"? twice???). Jinxmchue 17:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• 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.

• Comment Those making "Stalinist" remarks would do well to assume good faith about their fellow editors and avoid personal attacks.--Rosicrucian 17:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• We can assume good faith even in the face of evidence to the contrary, I suppose. Politically correct discussion is important, after all, while we are making an unperson out of somebody inconvenient. BenBurch 17:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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? [2] [3] NBGPWS 20:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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).
    • 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)
  • 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)
    • Comment: I have it on good authority that this AfD is going to be closed by a Diebold electronic voting machine! ZOMG!!!!111!1! --Aaron 19:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
• Keep, properly cited article that establishes weak notability Valoem ^talk 18:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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).

• 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)
• Damn. Someone went and used the Super Duper on us. I guess the debate is over. Dman727 20:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. Wildthing61476 19:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• *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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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[4] that brought you all here. Jinxmchue 21:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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.[5]  :) --Ed (Edgar181) 23:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• 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! [6] [7] NBGPWS 21:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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. Crockspot 04:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC):Done. --Tbeatty 04:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)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)"

NBGPWS 23:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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! [8] [9] NBGPWS 00:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... let's think how else we could explain this while still assuming good faith... maybe, just maybe, those two people happen to read articles about political figures and voting because of their interest in the subject, and noticed that these two articles merited afd'ing? --tjstrf 01:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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.Kitty Hammond 22:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Kitty Hammond (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

[edit] Arbitrary Page Break 3

• 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)
• 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)

  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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

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

• 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.[10]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)

• 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)

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 unsigned comment was added by 12.218.153.212 (talk • contribs) . — Possible single purpose account: 12.218.153.212 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

• 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 Vince Foster article to this one does NOT do the keep side justice. Articles are not kept on the merits of the relative goodness of the subject, ONLY on the relative notability and 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)

• 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 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)

• 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)

• Fixed the article Well, I did my best. Check out the article now. For extensive explanation of my fixes,. please see the talk page where I explain my fixes and rationale. It should be up to WikiPedia standards from 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)

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)

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)

• 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 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• You should hit them both with {{npa3}} or {{npa4}} tags. Such statements are direct and blatant violations of WP:NPA (which is policy, not a suggestion.) --Aaron 16:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• 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)

[edit] 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. [11] 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)

• Comment He is non-notable. You cite the HBO synopsis of the Bev Harris HBO program. Stephenson is mentioned once alongside the non-notable Susan Bernecker, Kathleen Wynne (Cleveland), Hugh Thompson (Security Innovations), Ion Sancho and Harri Hursti. All of whom are MORE notable than Stephenson and also lack the notability to be in Wikipedia (all red lines at the time of this post). Second, the logic you've applied is backward. The Notability Standard, which Stephenson fails, is in place to protect non-notable people from the public spotlight. All the persons you mentioned are Notable. Stephenson is not. And third, to be notable as a journalist one must have received multiple awards for journalism. To be notable in general, he needs multiple writeups in major publications for multiple events. He does not have that. He is in the paper for one thing: Black Box Voting. Most of the articles (i.e. the Guardian) are opinion pieces. The hard news items are almost exclusively local writeups about the single topic of black box voting. His obit seems excusively local. That does not make him notable enough for Wikipedia inclusion. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

• Comments:

1. We would, of course, merge useful info (mostly refs) into Black Box Voting.
2. Barring some investigative reporting by a reliable journalist, Wikipedia's ban on 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)

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)

Comment to NBGPWS This is in WP:NOT however: Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered.. Wildthing61476 13:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

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

• 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 assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. I'm noticing a distinct lack of civility in this discussion, and the closing admin will likely note that as well. This is not about Tbeatty, Crockspot, or anyone else and their political affiliations. That is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and if you feel they are conducting a purge of articles based off of their PoV, this is not the place to address that. Those involved have repeatedly been admonished to take their dispute through the standard resolution process and have persisted in carrying on said dispute on this AfD's page. I just want to state to all involved that you need to take this to talkpages, RfC, ArbCom, or really anywhere but here. If this continues here I will post a request to the Administrators' Noticeboard to end it the hard way.--Rosicrucian 15:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)
• Keep. Per WP:BIO, "the person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." I'm not a fan of the political ideals that Stephenson promoted, and I find Democratic Underground to be a rich source of unintended humor, but what I like least of all is when people can't resist dragging politics into Wikipedia. Stephenson plainly meets 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)

• Comment Where has he been the primary subject? --Tbeatty 17:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Here, for one. Look, if you'll check my history you'll find that I've started more than my share of AfDs, and though you won't see it in my history I've been responsible for quite a few speedy deletions and successful prods. I don't like seeing garbage cluttering the encyclopedia. I'm all for uncontroversial deletions. But when there's any doubt, as there certainly is here, I have a very strong bias in favor of keep; it doesn't really hurt anything to leave the article in place and I am certain that a number of people, learning about Stephenson from other sources, have visited Wikipedia to get more information on him. The activities of Stephenson during his life and the major Internet controversy surrounding his last days are more than sufficient to make him notable. Yeah, his politics were kind of silly and his "research" into voting methods highly questionable, but politics does not belong here. I reiterate my opinion that this article should clearly be kept. VoiceOfReason 18:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Additional comment The article may very well fail WP:NPOV, but the remedy for that is rewrite, not deletion. VoiceOfReason 18:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• I actually agree with you about the politics, that's why I put this up for deletion. There is no reason to bring the internet controversy to wikipedia and that is what was happening. Black Box Voting is notable and he certainly is a part of that. But a human interest writeup in Seattle Weekly is hardly noteworthy as meeting the inclusion criteria for WP and that's my problem with this entry. As you have seen from the multiple SPA writeups, this article has become a memorial to an otherwise non-notable person. I listed the six or so other people on the upcoming HBO show that are also non-notable (as is the show) but the topic IS notable and that is where they deserve mention. One article: Black Box Voting --Tbeatty 18:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment He spent years travelling around the country as an activist and specialist or expert on security flaws of black box voting. He was written up and quoted in numerous newspaper of international circulation. He testified at numerous hearings on machine certification. The campaign against him by right-wing blogs was documented in newspapers. This is all besides many thousands of internet mentions in sites concerned with verified voting.Edison 18:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• reply Please provide citations to his testimony. If he testified, a record exists. Please find references to say so. Also, if the campaign to smear him was mentioned in newspapers, please cite those papers. Also, see my additional comments below --Jayron32 18:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The "campaign against him by right-wing blogs" that "was documented in newspapers" is the part I have a problem with. Ferrari's claims in a newspaper are completely different than Ferrari's claims on blogs. She was documenting what was going on in real time on the blogs, but months later, she suddenly is telling newspapers completely contradictory information. The info in the newspaper article cannot be independently verified, but it can be debunked by Ferrari's own statements on blogs. Of course, blogs are not reliable sources, though her statements on them might be usable as primary sources. The article as it looks right now is not too bad, and I am ALMOST inclined to switch to a keep, but I cannot be assured that the smear campaign that existed when this article was first nominated will not return, therefore, I am holding firm on my delete vote. If you want to look at a pretty good archive of all the blog activity during the event, check out the www.scamdy.com forums. They captured everything relevant there. Crockspot 18:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It looks like someone has added more references. The subject's involvement in the electronic voting debate has been referenced to the following respected sources now: the aforementions Seattle Weekly and HBO citations; FoxNews, who quotes his opinion in the field of electronic voting machines and fraud; the Seattle Times, which quotes both him and Bev Harris repeatedly with regard to the use of electronic voting in a specific Washington state election; The Guardian, a British newspaper, calls him an expert and cites both him and Bev Harris WRT their work on the Diebold machines specifically and specifically applies their work to potential problems in the U.K. (establishing international relevance); The Washington Post has much of the same as well. These sources establish the notability of the "Black Box Voting" organization, and clearly establish both Andy Stephenson and Bev Harris as co-equally notable in the topic as well. The fact that Ms. Harris does not have an article yet does not mean she is not notable; indeed I am certain it will be remedied soon. What more burden of verifiability do you place on this subject? These are not just Op-Ed pieces or articles by friends of the subject. RELIABLE sources cite his work in the field, and The Guardian even uses the word "expert" specifically to refer to him... --Jayron32 18:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge verified material to Black Box Voting or Delete as failing WP:BIO. The relevant standard is WP:BIO. He won't meet the "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field" test, because the contribution, which may or may not enter the enduring historical record was Black Box Voting's, not his, and he did not lead the organization. A failed candidacy is not a basis of notability by Wikipedia standards. He fails the "primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person" test by not being a primary subject of anything in a reliable source except his obituary. (The result on this test could change in the future, but not by blog posts about him.) He doesn't meet the "achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" test because the reliable sources continued to need to explain who he is (mostly associate director of BBV) every time they mention him. I appreciate the effort by Jayron32 to clean-up the article. GRBerry 18:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • reply now that is a reasonable arguement. I respectfully disagree; but that is the tone that should be taken on AfD. Also, Edison has made significant contributions; and there are others. I still posit that the additions make him notable. They also make the subjects of Bev Harris and Black Box Voting notable as well. --Jayron32 18:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment The fact the Bev was the director and he was the associate director in no way prevents him having an article in relation to his activities in the organization. Scott Palmer is Dennis Hastert's assistant and he has his own article. Stephenson has well established notability in his own right. If he is in the news, the fact that he was for a time part of the Black Box Voting organization does not somehow transfer all his notability to that organization and prevent an article about him. Edison 19:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment The term "smear campaign" is ambiguous in these discussions. To some it means that Freepers and others alleged that he was not sick, didn't have cancer, didn't need the money for an operation, and that he was just looking for money for personal use in general. Scamdy reports calls to the hospital and to the supposed surgeon, who could not legally release any info to outsiders in any event. The Scamdy website is self documenting with posts made blogs denying that he legitimately needed money for an operation and that he was gravely ill. It is also described in the Seattle paper articles. To others "smear campaign" means the claim made in 2005 that the aforementioned right-wing campaign caused his death by preventing the hospital getting the money in time for an operation to be done around March 10, which is not well documented. He had an operation toward the end of May and subsequently died. This was apparently disputed for some time. What part of that is POV?Edison 19:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep per VoiceOfReason. Weak because just scrolling through this flamewar was an effort, so I can't honestly claim to have read all of it. Maybe there were even more brilliant arguments that I just didn't read. Can't people restrain themselves to, oh, 5 paragraphs each or so? Please? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• comment The existence of the website and forum Scamdy a forum with over a dozen subforums - specifically focused on discussing Andy's life, death and the controversies surrounding both - which claims that one subforum alone was read over 750,000 times - provides even more evidence of the notability of Andy's life and death. NBGPWS 20:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• The forum does not appear to be evidence of notability at all. The forum has less than 2500 posts, whereas many web forums can claim that many posts for a single user. You're really reaching here.--Rosicrucian 22:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree. Forums specifically devoted to discussing the lives of others from a critical point of view, like the forums discussing Keith Olbermann, Rush Limbaugh, etc, exist because those people are notable. If Andy and his work weren't notable, they wouldn't have started an ENTIRE FORUM about him. NBGPWS 22:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Anybody can start a webforum. It's not hard. These days they're the equivalent of having a Geocities site. Everybody and their brother has one. With very short notice one could be started on any topic you could name.--Rosicrucian 22:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• You're wrong. Neither my brother nor I have forums about us, or anybody else.NBGPWS 00:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Now you're just being intentionally obtuse. The point is that a web forum is not evidence of notability. A web forum with an extremely low post-count as web forums go is even less compelling in an argument for notability. You are grasping at straws.--Rosicrucian 00:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Remember to comment on content, not on the contributor. Thank you. NBGPWS 03:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• The content is that you are purposefully ignoring the point. I have cast no aspersions about the contributor other than that your argument in this case is nonsensical.--Rosicrucian 03:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per wwwwolf. Not reading all this discussion, just the article, there's no compelling evidence of notability at the WP:BIO level. Sandstein 20:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep because he achieved notability among a small subset of the online community, if nowhere else. Also, I would advise user NBGPWS to refrain from any tagential outbursts and stick to the subject under discussion. Ruthfulbarbarity 22:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Notability among a small subset of the online community is not encyclopedic notability. It's not even close.--Rosicrucian 22:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Not exclusively the online community. I think there were a few articles devoted to the controversy in alternative newspapers-although I could be mistaken-but yes, most of the publicity surrounding him was generated by large online communities, e.g. DailyKos, Democratic Underground, Free Republic, etc... I'm not going to argue vociferously against this article's deletion, because I don't think he is that notable, but I'm simply expressing my belief that he is of minor notability at least. Ruthfulbarbarity 22:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm mainly just arguing back that said "minor notability" as you describe it doesn't seem to correlate very well with WP:BIO and the standards it applies.--Rosicrucian 23:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• comment I see that the article is once again pushing false claims about the freezing of funds prior to Andy's surgery. I retract my earlier statement that implied that I was teetering on my delete vote. Crockspot 14:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • reply I removed unreferenced statements. Everything in there is now verifiable. --Jayron32 20:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I spotted this nomination in AfD earlier on and was not sure on its status and decided not to just throw in a "vote" either way (hence, assuming good faith). The article did have references, and the subject "appeared" as a possible keeper in Wiki. Both sides of this debate have made good points, but wwwwolf’s input is the most convincing of the article and I agree with those points mentioned. Delete as nominated. JungleCat talk/contrib 14:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Response to wwwolf's comments I think wwwolf has made one of the best delete arguements here, but I would like to counter it with some points. 1) He seems to figure prominently in the upcoming HBO documentary "Hacking Democracy" He is not the sole subject; but its not a biopic, it is about the entire topic, and other sites attest to his recognized expertise in that topic. 2) Several sources have specifically cited him for his work, and quote him specifically with regards to his work, or even call him an expert (The Guardian reference, for one example). He meets primary notability criteria: He's referenced in several reputable sources in a non-trivial way. 3) His notability is not necessarily as a journalist per se but as an activist. As an activist, he is certainly significantly more notable than the average activist. His appearence in several reputable sources in a non-trivial manner attests to that --Jayron32 20:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with CWC that the article is something of a vandal magnet, but so is George W. Bush. Vandalism and NPOV problems are reasons for patrolling, not deleting. JamesMLane t c 23:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment Everybody pretty much talked out? No consensus for deletion, as evidenced by the extent of discussion here.Edison 04:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Second I second that motion. Here here... --Jayron32 04:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment That is not our decision to make here. JungleCat talk/contrib 05:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Correct. The only real way to get this closed early would be to invoke WP:SNOW, but that clearly doesn't apply here.--Rosicrucian 16:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Correct, with obvious discussion and disagreement above, plus solitiations of outsiders to come here, this will stay open until a closing admin decides 1) which arguments from Wikipedia policy are stronger and 2) who they are going to choose to disenfranchise as not being an established editor. Plus, AFD runs for five days (plus however longer it takes the admins to get to it and decide the right answer - obvious closes generally close close to on time, things like this usually take longer). Then after that, somebody will decide the admin got the closure wrong, and it will go to deletion review. I can spell the deletion review coming on this already, and am not looking forward to it. GRBerry 16:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete. While there are a lot of references, the article does not appear to show that this person was notable. Vegaswikian 21:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. It is on the borderline of notability, but I'm going to go with the benifit of the doubt. 11kowrom 01:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. i did some googling on this one. he is mentioned quite a few times in the nationwide mainstream media in his role as associate director of black box voting and also as candidate for office. he also has some coverage specifically on him via seattle weekly. while hardly overwhelmingly notable, this seems enough to me to keep around. it's also worth noting that this nom is part of a concerted AFD campaign, which i find extremely irritating on principle. Derex 04:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A mess of an article for a minor figure. Piuro 18:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Barely notable figure whose barely notable status will only last a short time before he's likely forgotten. --Strothra 22:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, oh, and let's cut the votes please, this is a !vote -- Tawker 03:53, 22 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.