Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John DeCamp

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 of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 04:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John DeCamp

Long, unwikified, POV essay. Potentially an article could be written, but this isn't it. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. - Just zis Guy, you know? 15:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite. I'm not a fan of deleting simply because the current version of an article sucks. This guy is a former elected official and has been in the national media, he is notable. Even if it means taking this down to a stub to get rid of the problems. By the way the current version is a copyvio of some source [1] (not sure if that is the original). But still, is this guy not notable? --W.marsh 16:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.Gator1 19:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 04:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This article uses material from another article, Paul A. Bonacci, which originally was a long, rambling, POV essay full of conspiracy theories about satanic ritual abuse, mind control, etc. I posted quite a bit on that article's Talk page, then edited that article severely to remove all the POV stuff. The author then re-inserted it; I reverted twice, then posted on his Talk page with a request not to re-insert the material. He then took the material and created the John DeCamp article, leaving only a wikilink to it on the Paul A. Bonacci page. Sigh. Needless to say it is no more appropriate or encyclopedic there than it was in the first article. That said, I think a case can be made for a keep for the article itself, in that John DeCamp is probably a notable person for his elected official status, and his involvement in a crusade of sorts about all this stuff. MCB 22:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • After reading the source above, and realizing that it is not just a forum post but in fact the verbatim copying of a Des Moines Register article, I feel that it needs to be dealt with as a copyvio primarily, have the material deleted, and then the article can be re-created, if desired, from original material. Therefore, I attached the copyvio tag and will follow up in WP:CP. MCB 00:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete copyvio per MCB --Me or a Robin 11:25, 22 October 2005 (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.