Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Dyers and Kenja Communications

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 Ken Dyers and Kenja Communications merged to Kenja Communication. --Ezeu 10:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ken Dyers and Kenja Communications

This is not a biography (and if it aims to be a biography, a look at WP:LIVING is recommended). This is not even an encyclopedic article, 50% of its content is For a detailed history of Cornelia Rau, and some information on the Kenja Communication group, go to the following site to view an article by Robert Manne, Senior Professor at La Trobe University, and correspondent for the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age.. Wikipedia is not a registry of sex offenders. --Pjacobi 12:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Some sex offenders are notable for their high publicity cases, leading to this being more than a simple registry. Ansell 23:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete-Fails both WP:BIO and WP:CORP as neither the person or the company is notable. --Wine Guy Talk 00:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you aware of the implications of the particular controversy being referenced in the article. It was a major Australian scandal and as such reaches notability for me. Why exactly did this not in your view meet the "guidelines" you referenced? Ansell 23:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. This is a well known cult in Australia especially given the claims about Cornelia Rau who was in the news recently. The sexual claim also had extensive coverage. It could possibly form two articles. Capitalistroadster 02:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Capitalistroadster. Him & his group are notable in Australia, both for the Cornelia Rau angle & the sexual abuse allegations. (Or should I say, as notable as many other fringe cult groups accused of crimes.) --SJK 09:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to Merge -- given that we have a Kenja Communication article, I would merge this article to Kenja Communications. (Thanks to Pjacobi for pointing it out.) --SJK 09:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment to the keep voters: articles nominated for deletion are not write-protected in any way. If you are able to make this miserable entry into something encyclopedic, please by any means, do so! --Pjacobi 10:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this version without prejudice for a new article. If kept, rename to Ken Dyers and/or Kenja Communications. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Kenja Communications in my opinion, as Ken Dyers is notable only within the company context, and the whole company is notable for the incident. Possibly have a redirect for Ken Dyers to the company article in view of this. Ansell 23:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. POV, Salacious, sourced-but-unproven gossip. -- GWO
• Note: Just found Kenja Communication. --Pjacobi 08:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Note I have now merged the content of this page into Kenja Communication, which I cleaned up. I took the AFD notice with it, not wanting to preempt the outcome of the AFD... --SJK 10:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Your merging fits my opinion in this discussion. It also seems to fit some others so far so you are not out of your depth in being bold in this case. Ansell 10:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as it is after SJK's merge - Peripitus (Talk) 11:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep now that it's merged. The organization in question seems to be getting some national press; passes WP:ORG as proposed. --Satori Son 15:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• keep now as it is merged by sjk Yuckfoo 17:49, 21 July 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.