Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bart McQueary 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 00:20, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bart McQueary

First VfD (in April) resulted in no consensus. I'm renominating, since a lot of the contents are unverifiable other than an archived personal web page and some untagged images. "Bart McQueary" -wikipedia receives 615 hits on Google. ral315 01:19, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep The guy show up on *GOOGLE* for christs sake - he MUST be included. He meets the only important criterion that you sad gits seem to have. 212.101.64.4 16:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It's painfully obvious that Bart McQueary or someone who knows Bart Mcqueary has been editing the article in favor of McQueary, and there's no way that he/they are ever going to let up. This is probably a rare instance in wiki, someone vandalizing their own entry in their favor; but if Mcqueary can't play by the rules, and he won't allow anyone else to play by the rules, well, I see no great loss by removing his entry. He doesn't exactly... well... matter, anyway. Im sure there are plenty of other bible thumpers and porno pushers out there to take up the clout.Timmybiscool 02:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

STRONG Delete I've tried to work on this the best I can. Honest to God I have. I've done my homework. I've combed through page after page of McQueary's own archived websites looking for the truth. I find the man despicable, but I have put the positive information I found on him in this article. I could have easily neglected that he did in fact raise money for children's charities, that he was in fact harassed unjustly by the police, that his statutory rape arrest was due to a piddly three year difference. I did no such thing. The good and the bad are both in this article. But McQueary doesn't want the latter of those two included, apparently. Case in point: Bart McQueary is trying to edit the article to remove the fact that he once advertised his page as an escort service. For over two years now the web archive service has featured the page proving this. It was linked to here in the article, and for the past week or so you could click on that link and see it for yourself. Now that McQueary has come in and started editing the page, the "escort page"-- which for YEARS has been out there in the web archive for all to see-- has suddenly been disabled by a robots.txt. Coincidence? I think not. And of course he is going to come in here, boorish as he is in real life, saying, "PROVE IT. PROVE that it existed." Well guess what, Bart, I could've, if I'd have known you were going to block the page. I could've saved the page to my PC and uploaded it to another server for all the world to behold. But you got rid of it. And now, no, I can't "prove it." And the only reason is because of you. McQueary is trying to manipulate what people can know about him. If that's the case, there's no need in having an entry on him in Wiki; he'll only allow information about himself that he WANTS to be known.69.154.189.180 02:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Just out of curiosity... have you ever looked up Robert Million in the Harrodsburg listings?
    • Sign your posts with four ~ so people can see who you are. Yes, there is a Robert Million in Harrodsburg, per the Kentucky white pages. I will check in a moment to see if this number matches the one on REM Entertainment. If this truly is the operator of REM, it brings up a new question-- if McQueary had truly been "born again," why would he enable the furtherance of pornography by selling his business to someone else to continue marketing his stuff-- including homosexual porn? Why didn't he shut down the site? And why did REM Entertainment go down in the same time frame as McQueary's page? Bart McQueary, hater of homosexuals, not only sells his porn page rather than shut it down, but he sells it to someone in the exact same town he lives in, who keeps McQueary's phone number on the page for an extended period of time, and when a new number appears people call it and claim to have reached Mcqueary, AND it goes down at the same time McQueary's page goes down? Let us use Occam's Razor here. By the way, while I was at it, I looked up Bart McQueary and found zero results. Also zero for Bartley McQueary, and the only B McQueary was a "B.M. McQueary" in Louisville. [1] Even Fred Phelps keeps his number listed. And what do people have to gain by saying they called REM and got ahold of McQueary? The people to post on AIA aren't the only ones. 69.154.189.180 04:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Golly, isn't that funny? After two years of being able to access Bart's Stuff/REM Entertainment's archived pages via archive.org, in the past few days they have mysteriously been blocked from viewing by the site's owner! Isn't that a splendid concidence to protect the venerable name of Bart McQueary? If his life is such an open book, why does he feel the need to hide these things about himself? This article needs to be deleted on the sheer basis that McQueary is actively destroying information about himself. 69.154.189.180 04:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Timmybiscool. An article on Fred Phelps is appropriate, but I can't see that Bart McQueary is anything other than an attention-starved moron. Are we going to give every thug his own article? Besides, as has been said, if he (or whoever) can't leave the article alone, it's really not worth the trouble. Don't feed his 300 pound ego any more. --4.253.71.19 02:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • This is this user's first contribution to Wiki. (Not that I'm complaining)69.154.189.180 02:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
      • For some reason, I was not logged in. My correct signature: --Bayyoc 02:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, contents of the article do appear to be unverifiable.--nixie 02:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • delete apparent vanity, (or proxy vanity?), and I don't see what is supposed to be notable about this guy. Brighterorange 03:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, ok, I noticed two articles that are up for WP:FAC wound up on here: this one and Tucker Max. Should the FAC be completed before the VFD process is started? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn <drini ☎> 04:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I'd like to say it's because this guy comes across as such a flaming jerk. But really it's just because he's good ol'-fashioned non-notable except in his own mind. Denni☯ 04:59, 2005 August 3 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonnotable. Capitalistroadster 05:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Whether legitimately members or not, I feel that cult members do not necessarily get to have a page over non-cult members for doing the same acts. Any of his actual activities would not legitimize having a Wiki entry, and the fact that he is trying to modify it means that even if valid, the article's existence will always be less than reliable. I say the safe thing to do is just snip it away.Smoove K 04:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • This comment taken from discussion page
  • Delete as uber vanity. McQueary is obviously trying to destroy his dirty laundry so that the only factual information that will be able to be sourced will all be self-fellating congratulatory garbage. It was a good article, but in his quest to cover his past up, McQueary has shot himself in the foot. Mistergrind 06:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, not notable, terribly POV, uninformative, only serves to make a point...these all scream delete this now! Harro5 08:01, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, but I could be convinced otherwise, I think. Right now the article does a good job of illustrating his insane bigotry but doesn't give me much impression of notability. Everyking 10:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, barely crosses the notability threshold, and there's plenty of info, apparently. --Merovingian (t) (c) 11:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Classic vanity. Agentsoo 13:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, the above usersare right, I cited this article as a source for a paper I wrote on hypocritical attitudes of members of the adult film industry, and when I went to check the links last week they were all active and showed what the other editors say they showed. i believe that mcqueary is taking down info about himself to protect his image.216.7.251.106 15:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per above.--Mitsukai 15:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nauseating self-promotion. --Scimitar parley 17:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not Notable. I might suggest he gets professional mental health therapy. Maybe Scientology. Hamster Sandwich 17:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonnotable. --BirgitteSB 17:59, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, for reasons already stated. Note that at the end, the article pushes his POV about someone being a bitch: clearly the article is just vanity-rampant. -Splash 19:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Vanity. Well documented, but that is neither necessary nor sufficient for an article. JDoorjam 19:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete A super vanity article by a nn bully whose real life is so pathetic he has to use wiki to try and validate himself. wouldn't be surprised if he is 'timmyb' acting out a revert war with himself.207.70.152.126 20:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Week Keep. If he really was the instigatory party of the (very famous) ten commandments lawsuit, then this is both notable and verifiable. Much of the other information (i.e. what was on his website when, what kind of porn he likes/peddles, etc.) is not encylopaedic there is little or no reason for its inclusion. If kept this should be about a two paragraph article. Fawcett5 20:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, he wasn't the sole instigator, just one of many people across the country who complained to the ACLU. It just so happens that he--surprise surprise-- was the one who dove headlong onto the publicity wagon. 65.71.127.228 21:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this travesty against of all that Wikipedia should be. --Alabamaboy 20:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 00:21, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete per above. MicahMN | Talk 01:47, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. FunkyChicken! 03:52, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Do we really need this article? All this guy has done is create a website and spit in the public's eye. Actually, I'm probably going to make McQueary's "Hell bound" list on his godhatesharrodsburg.com site for posting this. It makes Kentucky look bad; yes, I know this is an encyclopedia that archives information, good or bad, but really he's not worth having his own article. If he gets an article, I should get one! ;PDannyMac
    • This comment taken from talk page
  • Delete. I don't see any notability. David | Talk 16:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. No. Civ.A. 01-480-KSF. United States District Court, E. D. Kentucky, Lexington.: "The plaintiffs, both Mercer County resident Bart McQueary and the American Civil Liberties Union (hereinafter "ACLU"), seek declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. [section] 1983, alleging that a display in the Mercer County Courthouse violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment." This says he's notable. If this article is deleted I will write a new one citing that important case and using reference material from the current one. --Tony SidawayTalk 15:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Which would then be eligible for speedy deletion if nominated. The Wikis have looked at the facts of the case and it looks as if nn is going to be the rule. If Bart belongs anywhere on Wiki, it is as one of the litigants in an article on the ten commandments case. Do all of people who sued have their own articles? 65.71.127.228 16:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
      • A completely new article on the same subject as a deleted article is not eligible for speedy deletion. ACLU v. Mercer County is not just your average lawsuit. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
        • I would have no problem with McQueary being a section in the ACLU Ten Commandments Lawsuit, kept strictly to being about his lawsuit. As it is, the article now is about him as a person, and thus requires looking at the whole scope of him: Sex offender, charity fundraiser, champion of the law, pornographer, philanthropist, hypocrite, radical, liar, crusader.65.71.127.228 19:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Ironically, 65.71.127.228 you are the one who wrote the bulk of it! Now that some of your claims are being disputed, you are leading the charge to have it deleted.
        • Another unsigned comment by 66.32.122.23365.71.127.228 22:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
          • SIGN YOUR COMMENTS'. I led the charge to have this deleted last time, too. But since it didn't go through, I figured the truth about McQueary might as well be known. Now that another opportunity has come up... My "claims" as you call them only became "claims" a few days ago when Bart McQueary blocked the archives of his webpages in order to get the information taken out of wiki per lack of evidence. Before then, they were not claims-- they were indisputable facts. Hey, Bart, how about you get rid of your robots.txt so everyone can see that I'm telling the truth? Oh, I forgot-- the truth isn't what you're interested in. If McQueary truly had repented his old ways, why would he block the archived pages, unless they were evidence of a crime he didn't want known? Paul of Tarsus certainly didn't try to cover up that he was a murderer.65.71.127.228 19:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • In addition to the Ten Commandments we also have this case [[2]]. The article just needs to be re-written with irrelevant things like forum squabbling deleted.
    • Unsigned comment by user 66.32.122.233

NOTE: Is there any way for an administrator or someone to check and see if sock puppets are voting to keep this article. With one exception, the votes to keep are from anonymous users. --Alabamaboy 21:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  • That is simply incorrect. Why muddy the waters by making patently false statements? --Tony SidawayTalk 22:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • As far as I can tell, most of the keeps come from registered users, as opposed to anonymous ones.65.71.127.228 03:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I will admit I miscounted--there are only two anonymous keeps. However, percentage wise this is almost half of the votes to keep, as opposed the vast majority of deletes which are registered users. My statement stands, if slightly reworded.--Alabamaboy 12:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Self-aggrandizing non-notable. --Carnildo 23:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, doing one potentially borderline notable thing in your life does not give you leave to publish your entire life story in wikipedia. -R. fiend 15:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete overlong useless autobiography of borderline notable person and rewrite a brief bio-stub per Tony Sidaway. FCYTravis 18:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 04:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per R. fiend. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I've lived in Harrodsburg, and I have no doubt that Bart is editing his stuff. I used to see him coming into Wal-Mart to buy the packing envelopes for his videos. And you know what? After he "sold the page," I STILL saw him coming into Wal-Mart and buying packing envelopes en masse. Make no bones about it-- his "conversion" is an absolute joke. Bart has either gone insane, he was never firmly based in reality to begin with, and thinks he is Phelps, or he has become Phelps because his pleasure in life is hurting others, and who has done that better than Westboro. It was a real ugly thing when his brother died, I think that might have something to do with it. And his the whole business with him and the girl. Take it from someone who's met him and had to deal with him: This guys ten commandmetns lawsuit was nothing more than an attempt to feed his own bloated, hateful ego. He doesn't give a damn about the ACLU or anybody's freedoms, only causing trouble for others and stirring up crap. Mention him in the lawsuit if you have to, but keep it to a bare minimum; anything more is inviting him to ooze his way into the cracks of Wiki and poison it. 216.7.251.54 17:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    • This is this user's only contribution to Wiki65.71.127.228 21:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • And so the reason to delete is?...
    • YET ANOTHER unsigned comment by 66.32.122.233 65.71.127.228 21:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Tony Sidaway; article clearly needs complete rewrite but he has been involved in at least two prominent law suits. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:54, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete,""" vanity206.109.17.11 18:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    • This is this user's only contribution to Wiki65.71.127.228 21:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep after a rewrite. The article is too long, in fact it is longer than many movie stars. It should talk about the ACLU Ten Commandments article, the lawsuit with the Kentucky slogan, briefly touch upon the association with Fred Phelps and then end. We don't need to go into forum squabbles and an exchange of words in Wal-Mart or calling someone a bitch. That belongs on "Wikidimenovel". 66.32.122.233 19:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: This is this user's second vote in the same VFD65.71.127.228 22:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry bout that. 66.32.122.233 22:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Páll (Die pienk olifant) 21:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] See also

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.