Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Villeneuve

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous.

I count 5 keep as is (one of which was opened since the VfD nomination and is discounted as a possible Wikipedia:sockpuppet), 2 keep as redirect and 9 delete (two of whom took the time to say they would also support the redirect). Failing to reach a clear concensus to delete, this decision defaults to keep.

Reading through the arguments and supporting links (and filtering out the personal attacks on both sides), I find myself agreeing that, to the extent that Mr Villeneuve has attained notability, it is right now almost solely derivative from his relationship with Permanent Defense. I am going to exercise my discretion as an ordinary editor and make this a redirect. Rossami (talk) 03:55, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Villeneuve

Local political activist of dubious notability. Permanent Defense, the group he founded to combat Tim Eyman (which, as a progressive Washingtonian, I very much appreciate) has gotten a little bit of press, but he's hardly a notable figure in his own right. 320 google hits, a healthy percentage of which are for other people by the same name. RadicalSubversiv E 09:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I agree. Delete --fvw* 16:33, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
• Redirect to Permanent Defense, which seems notable. Meelar (talk) 18:41, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Barring further material, I'm going to stand by my vote. It seems that most of Mr. Villeneuve's notability comes through Permanent Defense, and that he could be addressed in that article. Look at this article: it contains very few details about Villeneuve himself, and a lot of material about the group. Please don't take this as a slur; just as a comment that perhaps the material covered here should be put elsewhere. I'll change my vote if this article is rewritten such that it is clearly about Mr. Villeneuve, rather than Permanent Defense. Meelar (talk) 17:52, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, borderline notability and not much else. Megan1967 00:25, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, while local political activism isn't inherently notable, the level of interest in this VfD, along with some helpful input I've received from another user, have changed my mind. Keep, the overall issue seems notable in the NW US, and this individual seems to playing an active role. Wyss 00:19, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Wyss 04:01, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. Cleduc 07:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete I feel my biography has potential and that none of you have made much of a case for its deletion. Seanorthwest 04:49, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Editor is the subject of the article; I have responded to his concerns on Talk:Andrew Villeneuve. RadicalSubversiv E 06:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • You did not respond satisfactorily in my view. You further disparaged the man and treated him quite contemptuously. Libertas
• Strong Keep He led an important aspect of opposition statewide to an initiative that would have seen the installation of over 18000 slot machines in Washington State. He succeeded against well-funded, well-organized opposition. This seems clearly notable by any measure, he was quoted representing the opposition in the Seattle Post Intelligencer[1]. The Permanent Defense article reads like a political pamphlet but that's another story. Villeneuve is clearly an important player not just in local politics but statewide and like him or not he warrants an article, with more facts and in more neutral form than the Permanent Defense article. It really should stay. I can help perhaps by adding to it, no one could allege I am sympathetic to his views, I'm not. Libertas
  • I suspect Libertas's vote has less to do with the subject matter than the fact that s/he is upset with me over several unrelated disputes (see User talk:Libertas for details). If Libertas had any knowledge of Washington state politics, s/he would understand that Eyman's latest initiative seriously unpopular almost from the beginning, and that Villeneuve's efforts (which, again, I support) had little to do with its overwhelming defeat. The only well-funded opposition to 892 came from the tribes. RadicalSubversiv E 06:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Radicalsubversiv makes another personal attack in order to diminish my position. I am more familiar with Washington politics than he might think. The initiative received 35% support did it not, hardly dead on arrival. I acknowledge others worked with Villeneuve, particular public sector rent-seekers who wanted to keep the taxes flowing. But to deny Villeneuve's role in it seems churlish and is most probably some nasty internal left dispute within the happy community of Washington liberals and marijuana activists. Radicalsubversiv misuses his role here to prosecute outside battles. I think he protests too much about supporting Villeneuve. I smell a rat. You're wrong about the funding sources btw, but why let facts get in the way of your story. Libertas
• Vanity page says it pretty clearly. Such a thing is not considered of a good taste. --Menchi 09:08, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • That's very true, but it isn't a vanity page. He didn't write it. Libertas
    • I withdraw my comment since that's the case. --Menchi 09:57, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. Hard to tell whether the man is notable in own right rather than just as a part of a campaign. User:Libertas, you seem to be using vfd to pursue a vendetta against another user. Not appropriate. I especially dislike the suggestion implicit in your argument above that since dissension is common on the "Left" no leftist can be trusted to comment on any left subject. Mattley 12:11, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Given your user page discloses an interest in British trade unions and revolutionary theory, you would indeed know. Please recuse yourself from this decision, left-wing activists, justice must be done and seen to be done. This is indeed a vendetta deletion proposal, it shouldn't be happening at all. Libertas
    • Yeah, and given that it also tells you I live in Birmingham in the UK I'm unlikely to be deeply involved in Washington left politics, wouldn't you say? I see absolutely no evidence that this was nominated in bad faith. The subject of the article is indeed 'of dubious notability' in that his notability outside of the group of which he is a member is questionable. You have not, despite all your contributions to this "debate", provided any evidence of personal animosity between the nominator and the subject. Even if you did it would scarcely make a diference as radical has commented on the article and its merits, as has every other contributor. You on the other hand have continually cast aspersions on other users and made ridiculous ad hominem attacks on users who differ from you in politics. You are bullying other users. Please mend your ways. Mattley 13:03, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I see a lack of any references or substantiation whatsoever. Delete unless some can be found - David Gerard 13:25, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • He has been quoted at length in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Not sure if that's enough but I thought it significant. Libertas
    • You deliberately left out the citation for the quote. It was not included in a story, but in a "readers sound off" feature on the editorial page, akin to letters to the editor. RadicalSubversiv E 23:50, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I deliberately left out nothing, he is clearly a prominent community activist and was first cited in the piece with a very long quote. I am not familiar with Seattle PI and in the circumstances think your unproven assertion is not acceptable. Libertas
• Redirect to Permanent Defense. The person himself is not notable. RickK 23:11, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to Permanent Defense. I see no evidence of notability yet. I'm also troubled by the use of vfd to persue grudges - take it to the talk pages and keep it out of here. Gamaliel 23:15, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Not just that Gamalie, but a minority of users are claiming that because you vote delete it must be some conspiracry against left activism. I find such a stand by Libertas for example to be particularly insulting, I am neither left nor right and I dont believe politics should be involved in the VfD process. I still havent been convinced Villeneuve is notable enough for inclusion, plain and simple as that.
• Weak Keep Looks notable but not fully explained - check google - very active. Miffed 23:35, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipaedia should err on the side of inclusion. If the article is biased, rework it, but minor American political activists seem like fair game to me. After all, we all want Wikipedia to be *the* place for people to read encyclopedia articles about pretty much everything, exept vanity pages.Zantastik 23:58, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This fellow isn't notable. I'm also troubled by the harassment of users on this page. Mackensen (talk) 07:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks noteworthy. Salazar 02:55, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • User joined Jan 9 2005.
• Delete or redirect. —Ben Brockert (42) 06:17, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I have moved an extensive discussion to the Talk page. RickK 23:01, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.