Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Mcilvaine

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 (see comment at the end). —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Mcilvaine

Non-notable bio. Basically a relative of a 9/11 victim who believes 9/11 conspiracy theories. He gets all of 183 google hits (this is a mistake - see below) [1]. This is part of a campaign by User:Striver to create stubs for a gazillion non-notable 9/11 conspiracy nuts. GabrielF 02:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Whoops, I made a mistake and googled the son, not the father. "Bob Mcilvaine" gets all of 939 google hits. [2] GabrielF 02:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nom GabrielF 21:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn bio. --MCB 06:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep He has been on the panel of prominent 9/11TM metings and has been prominently interviewd by international media. He is also included in a movie that is on its way. Not to mention that he is a 9/11 victim family. He most certanly meets the notability criteria of wikipedia. --Striver 12:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

CNN coverage--Striver 13:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Just added more news coverage of him. --Striver 13:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

And more about his son... no way this article is going to be deleted now... --Striver 13:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• So he's on a barely notable panel, may be featured in a non-notable movie and is one of thousands of 9/11 victim's families. That doesn't establish notability. In the articles that you mention he's generally one of several people quoted for a particular position. Further, I've been quoted in a handful of newspaper articles do, does that make me inherently notable? GabrielF 13:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

CNN? Any international one? If yes, they you are also notable per WP:N: "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)"--Striver 13:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want to argue for notability due to extensive media coverage, add the links here to make yoru case, but don't clutter an already content-thin article with dozens of media "coverage" (which you seem to be doing often lately, btw). Artcles are not supposed to be collections of media coverage. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Striver, I'm not sure you understand that what you're quoting is exactly why most people arguing for deletion believe that pretty much all the current references are useless. Primary subject means that the article is about McIlvaine. Pascal.Tesson 21:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete conspiracy theory nonsense POV cruftist..simply not notable.--MONGO 13:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Above vote has been reported to ANI. Just FYI. --Striver 13:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe you just did that :-( Please reconsider that type of behavior, it does NOT help make AfD talk any more productive, it just wasted a lot of peoples' time and stirred up bad feelings. My Alt Account 04:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per MONGO --Doc 14:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete sub-trivial conspiracist minutia. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• very Weak keep He isn't even that prominent in the 9/11 truth movement and most of these news mentions are minor but there are still a lot of mentions in the news. JoshuaZ 14:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep seems he has become a celebrity victim, frequently called upon by the media for a nice soundbite. --Salix alba (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Also, I vote "keep" as per: User:Striver.
  User:GabrielF bias is clear calling them: "9/11 conspiracy nuts". They may actually be conspiracy nuts, but that is no reason to delete the article. Where does it say in wikipedia policy notable "nuts" can't have wikipages?
  User:GabrielF, in initiating the AfD, originally stated incorrectly that he has 183 hits on google, he also failed to mention that this page has 17 sources, including the NYTimes, CNN, The independent, USA Today, even the ultra conservative freerepublic.com. How is someone who is mentioned in all of these reputable sources Non-notable? Travb (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment keyword here is mentioned. All these report on 9/11 families stuff a number of times a year. Some of them will have a quote of the form "bla says Mr. X whose wife died in the attack". So what? I bet you you have more quotes out there from the spokesperson of the department of motor vehicles. Pascal.Tesson 21:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You should attempt to assume good faith of your fellow editors. Accusing others of POV [3] ?--zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Response on your user page, I deleted the comments you are refering too. Travb (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I am glad that we have established that this source is mentioned 17 times, in: NYTimes, CNN, The independent, USA Today, even the ultra conservative freerepublic.com. You can spin that fact anyway you want, but the idea that this person is non-notable fails. "I bet you you have more quotes out there from the spokesperson of the department of motor vehicles." What does the motor vehicles have to do with this article? Clever analogies do not prove your point, therefore the person is notable, and therefore the basis of this AfD is questionable. I suggest this article be Speedy kept, since the one policy reason for the AfD have been shown to be fallacious at best, malicious at worst. Travb (talk) 03:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Please check my comment below - in a nutshell, the profusion of links at the bottom is basically fluff, with many of the links not mentioning the article's subject at all. Of the major news coverage, two give him 1-2 sentences of coverage, and only the MSNBC interview transcript has him as the primary subject of the coverage. In short, the links to "sources" at the bottom are misleading.My Alt Account 18:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep cranks who get substantial media coverage. Who cares if he buys the conspiracy theory, that's not what this is about. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Striver - Glen 14:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per MONGO and nom. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. From what I can tell, he hasn't actually been the subject of any of the articles, just a source. He also apparently hasn't done anything like founding an organization or some other thing that would make him of note. However, he does meet one of my personal criteria: Would somebody see his name in the news, wonder who the guy is, and come to Wikipedia to find out? I also disagree strongly with the notion that he couldn't be notable because of his opinions. William Pietri 15:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Well actually it seems that anytime he's mentioned in the news it's always accompanied by "whose son..." so I think we're safe on that side! Pascal.Tesson 21:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom. Hiddekel 15:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Above is a user with low amount of edits.--Striver 16:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

He's been around for a year and therefore he is clearly not a sockpuppet created for this debate. He's obviously done enough edits that he probably knows a thing or two about wikipedia. My Alt Account 18:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete When is the list of people coming out that believe that 9/11 was caused by islamic fundamentalist terrorists who flew planes into the towers, the pentagon, and intended to do more damage? Pseudotumor 15:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Above is a user with low amount of edits.--Striver 16:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

User's been around for a month. If you think it's a sockpuppet account, say so, and provide some evidence. A real joke/sock account would look more like this: User:Wajwt

• Delete per nom, non-notable. Fails WP:NOT. Morton devonshire 17:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MONGO. No significance established, created as part of a POV-pushing agenda. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I was impressed by the apparent size of this article, but after looking through it, it's apparent that it's largely fluff. The citation of "sources" is misleading. Most of the articles linked only mention the subject's son and not the subject of the article himself. Of the ones that do mention the subject himself, two are effectively listed twice: A and A Prime are two different links to the same article, and so are B and B Prime. The stories by the major news outlets mostly give Bob McIlvaine 1-2 sentences of vague exposition. Most of the rest are links to articles on the websites of obscure political fringe groups. It's apparent to me that Striver just googled the guy's name without doing much checking of the content behind the links that popped up. In short, this guy would be notable if his views were getting a significant amount of play, but I'm afraid at this point his views are mostly relegated to obscurity. My Alt Account 18:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete having this article really hurts wikipedia's credibility--IworkforNASA 19:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Has enough major media coverage to confer notability. And that's really the only relevant question at issue. --Hyperbole 19:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP I'm a liberals and feels that wikipedia is the best place for me to puts mes propaganadas, so STRONG KEEP IT--Wajwt 20:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Account's first edit, naturally. William Pietri 20:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • lkeep i too love liberal propaganda and want it to stay on wikipeidas~!Foozball 20:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Account's first edit as well. William Pietri 20:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - he may be a media attention seeker, but he has suceeded. -- Whpq 20:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT Striver would like you to think that, but it really isn't true. If you look in detail at the many articles Striver mentioned you'll see that he is usually a tiny quote in a large article. The Independent article for example (not accessible online) contains SIX PAGES of rememberences from a number of people. The 3/5/2004 CNN article has a one sentence quote from McIlvane and he is one of four 9/11 family members quoted. I can't find the 3/18/05 CNN article but the selection quoted on the website Striver is using as a source doesn't mention Mcilvaine. The BBC article has a one sentence quote from him and he is one of six people quoted. The NYTimes article is a one sentence "Quote of the Day" feature and only says that he attended a 9/11 commission hearing. None of these are notable. GabrielF 21:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I am glad that we have established that this source is mentioned 17 times, in: NYTimes, CNN, The independent, USA Today, even the ultra conservative freerepublic.com. You can spin that fact anyway you want, but the idea that this person is non-notable fails. The person is notable, and therefore the basis of this AfD is questionable. I suggest this article be Speedy kept, since the one policy reason for the AfD have been shown to be fallacious. I would also like to bring up the fact that the person who initiated this AfD.[4] Did not follow the suggested guidelines of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion suggested guidelines state, in the very first two sentences: "Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate." Travb (talk) 03:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete (and let the sockpuppet party move to another 9/11 conspiracy AfD debate) The links given in the article do not constitute coverage where McIlvaine is the "primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works". Pretty much anyone involved in the 9/11 associations will eventually turn up as quoted in various places. The whole list of references should be trimmed of all such references. Not much would remain, especially since at least two of the articles listed there do not contain his name. Pascal.Tesson 20:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per User:My Alt Account (odd username - just so as not to inadvertently accuse myself of sockpuppetry...) Sandstein 21:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. – Elisson • Talk 21:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Shadow1 21:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unsalvagable--RCT 21:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MONGO. Bang on the money. Guy 21:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep please mentioned frequently in the media about conspiracy theories Yuckfoo 22:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Striver, there is enough non-trivial coverage here to satisfy the WP:BIO guidelines. RFerreira 23:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and MONGO. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 03:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - subject may be vocal, but that in itself does not make him notable. Seaphoto 05:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Getting your name in the paper isn't per se a sign of notability, import, impact, or non-triviality. --Calton | Talk 07:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom—(Kepin)^{RING THE LIBERTY BELL} 12:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Salix Alba and William Pietri. He's got press coverage, and I agree with William that readers might want to know who he is. TheronJ 13:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 15:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MyAltAccount. --Mmx1 15:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete--ChaplineRVine^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 17:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete cruft factory, see also WP:NOT for why this shouldn't be on wikipedia--I-2-d2 17:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete article is a joke----Fellow-edit 17:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Mongo and Calton. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is ridiculous. Should we have an article for every nutjob who was ever quoted in a newspaper?--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment he he he. Apparently some believe that the answer is yes provided he's quoted 17 times. Pascal.Tesson 21:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above--Peephole 01:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, MONGO StriverCruft(tm)--Tbeatty 22:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep well known personality--Pussy Galore 04:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment This user is a possible sockpuppet single purpose account. See contribs and talk page. Pascal.Tesson 04:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment ^^^ This user is failing to assume good faith. As I've already told GabrielF, either request a checkuser, or kindly withdraw your allegations.--Pussy Galore 15:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

EDIT : Pascal.Tesson, and Arthur Rubin, you may be interested in the result of the checkuser I instigated against myself. "No malicous activity by this account". I hope you will now have the decency to apologise for your lurid allegations--Pussy Galore 20:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, the checkuser result states "the activity from your IP address is completely above-board" --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ye, my mistake. I have disabled the RPC Locator service on my doze box, therefore leaving me unable to copy and paste. Many thanks for the clarification. --Pussy Galore 21:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Certainly either a sockpuppet, a meatpuppet, or a long-time anon user. It doesn't matter which, except that only "he" could verify the latter, as the checkuser people wouldn't know which IP to check. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

comment [Personal attack removed per WP:NPA. -- William Pietri] --Pussy Galore 19:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

comment There was a comment posted by myself which was removed from the above section by Arthur Rubin. It showed the flawed logic of the argument of Pascal.Tesson. I would reinstate it myself, but sadly lack the neccessary tools to do so. --Pussy Galore 19:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin hasn't removed anything of yours in this article. As far as I can tell, I'm the only one to have removed a comment of yours. Others are welcome to review my edit and restore it if they think it's a useful contribution to the discussion. William Pietri 20:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that sockpuppet is probably too strong a term. But I think single purpose account is a fair assessment and I have edited my above comment to reflect that. Pascal.Tesson 22:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, etc. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Closing comment: Even though the consensus was fairly clear on "delete", I need to say something, especially since I've crossed paths with Striver and I know I will again (if this AfD log is a significant sample). My idea is that if an article needs tens of sources just to prove that its subject is notable (and fails to do so in view of a majority of people in its AfD), then the subject is not notable enough. About this person in particular, I suggest looking at a similar example: Juan Carlos Blumberg. For a few months he was just a father who'd lost his son to criminals. Appeared dozens of times in TV and newspapers, but he wasn't notable, just one more of a series of victims, until he led a march demanding security which gathered 200,000 people. That is notable. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:23, 12 September 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.