Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dean McVeigh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 NO CONSENSUS. Whilst a large part of the keeping contingent is of unestablished editorial history, the case for keeping it is certainly good enough at present to outweight the case to delete it on the spot. -Splashtalk 22:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dean McVeigh

Does not meet the criteria set out in WP:BIO A Y Arktos 10:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: In light of your comments on the Noticeboard, could you please explain why you say it does not meet the criteria set out. He clearly seems to qualify as noteworthy to me, particularly in light of the free speech issues and his professional prominence anyway. I am very uncomfortable with this being deleted in circumstances where there is no meaningful discussion. Userfreespeech 15:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC) (very new account — ciphergoth)

Response to above comment - this article will not be deleted without meaningful discussion - this is the place for that discussion. My comments at WP:AWNB were: he might fit under "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" - but I am not sure - I had not read of him outside wikipedia and only came across him because of the mention here [at AWNB]. As I have doubts that he has achieved "renown or notoriety", I do not believe he meets the criterion and hence my nomination.--A Y Arktos 02:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
comment - despite Capitalistroadster's best efforts, I am not convinced he is usfficiently notable. While he is involved in a high profile case, there would be plenty more notable accountants working on potentially more notable cases. His work does not seem to be leading the profession, for example writing books, involved in ground breaking cases, ....--A Y Arktos 10:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. He's just a random insolvency practitioner who had the misfortune to run into some vengeful student politicians with a lot of time to spare. Ambi 10:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

*Delete -- nn. - Longhair 10:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 11:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Changed to keep, after rewrite. --Terence Ong 12:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Student politicians have to play somewhere, but I for one would rather they stuck to near-incoherent rants on their weblogs and left Wikipedia out of it. WP:NOT a noticeboard for people who want to publicise their complaints and petty hatreds. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, Capitalistroadster has done some good work on this article. I'd like to note that it'll take some effort to keep the student pollies from getting their filthy paws all over this one, however, and it's work I'm not willing to do. Good luck to those who are willing to try to keep this article from degenerating. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Agnte 11:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • User:Capitalistroadster's rewrite is decent. However it appears to me that people associated with MakeMcVeighPay and the collapse of the student union are incapable of writing a NPOV article about this person. I doubt this page was created for any other purpose than bringing attention to their cause - I note that MakeMcVeighPay does not have a very good pagerank. wikipedia does. [1] Agnte 10:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
The issue here is not the motives of the person who started the article, or even whether the article as it stands is good or bad. The issue is whether McVeigh is of sufficient prominence to have an article about him. Adam 10:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. He's worthy of a mention in the MUSU article, but nothing further. Agnte 23:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • The news reports make me feel that he is close enough to notable to withdraw my position. JPD (talk) 11:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, Ambi and fuddlemark. Change to merge with Melbourne University Student Union following rewrite. The only notable content is directly in relation to the liquidation of that organisation. --bainer (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Not Delete - Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, he clearly qualifies as the Liquidator of the Melbourne University Student Union which has been the subject of many dozens of newspaper articles. Unitypigdog 13:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC) (very new account — ciphergoth)
  • Delete. Seems to verge on defamation. Unless all accusations are verified. Xtra 13:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Has been substantially changed by Capitalistroadster, so the article should be re-evaluated. There are still questions as to the relevance of a lot of the information and the notability of the rest. Xtra 10:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Merge into MUSU. Xtra 01:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC) restore Delete vote or Merge. Page is prone to too much vandalism for such a minor person. Xtra 03:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. His attempt to ban a blog on the grounds that it is contempt of court suggests that he much more than a *random insolvency practitioner*, I think a balanced article on the subject would be good. 138.217.97.27 14:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC) (anonymous account — Xtra 03:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC))
Further comments: In The Age archives there are 63 references to him, that seems like a lot. I haven't looked at all of the articles because they charge for them but he seems like a prominent insolvency practitioner. 138.217.97.27 14:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC) (anonymous account — ciphergoth)
  • Keep. Activities appear regularly reported by national press, involved in noteworthy event. Keep until shortage of cyperspace develops. Monicasdude 14:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The vast majority of those articles refer to McVeigh's insolvency practitioner activities, including Melbourne University Student Union and other liquidations including Rug's Galore and prior to that. Clearly well known person anyway but involvement in the contempt of court action seems to put him well over the top. 59.167.73.44 00:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • From talkpage: Here's an ABC link [2] . Here's a HeraldSun link; the story has expired and isn't cached at Google, but the search summary is clear enough ("Liquidator Dean McVeigh now has 24-hour protection outside his suburban Melbourne ... "To say that I am a threat to Dean McVeigh is just comical," he said. ...") Also [3], [4] ,
[5] (subscription only, but clear Google summary), [6] . There look to be enough general/specialty press references to indicate notability, plus all those blogs . . . Monicasdude 22:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
copied from talk page by A Y Arktos 23:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly prominent and raises many other issues of public interest around defamation/free speech/ contempt of court proceedings. Userfreespeech 15:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC) (very new account — ciphergoth)

I've marked "keep" comments from very new and anonymous users as "small". I haven't checked "delete" comments (too many, and my suspicions weren't raised) but others are welcome to. — ciphergoth 16:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep and cleanup. Judging from this article in the Age, he seems to be notable enough. [7] A search on an Australia and New Zealand newspaper index shows 23 hits. The POV in the article needs to come out. Capitalistroadster 17:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • please highlight if you perform a Renovation_Rescue so those who have voted delete can reconsider--A Y Arktos 20:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Just a note, AfD is not a vote. But yeah, highlighting if he does make the article worthwhile would be good, as a hint to the closer that some "votes" were cast in ignorance. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup as above. 203.153.200.204 21:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC) (anonymous account — Xtra 23:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC))
  • Improve or Delete. This biographical article does not address the global importance of its subject. The article suggests that McVeigh is famous in Australia for performing a (presumably) multimillion-dollar financial transaction. The article does not give comprehensive details on the transaction. I think McVeigh can be characterized, at this point, as a major player in a single local news story. Cdcon 22:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I haven't read this and have no vote but I strongly object to making anyone's comments small. Why stop at small - just change their font to junk so they can't be read at all! Très uncool. I've gone ahead and restored them to their former state. If people want their comments small, they can make them small. Admin's have full discretion to weigh the consensus however they want, including by how long the commenters have been users. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve the article. He is clearly noteworthy and arising from the contempt of court action will probably become much more so. 59.167.73.44 00:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC) (anonymous account — Xtra 03:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)) My account is anonymous but that just means I haven't signed in as a user yet, I'm no more anonymous that the other anonymous users. Is there anyone here who I identifies as a real person with contact information. If so I'll gladly put up my own. Perhaps everyone should before a vote is counted. The most relevant issue with McVeigh is his prominence, illustrated by many press articles and his involvement in newsworthy events. The issue of the quality of the article is a separate matter, it should certainly be improved as several users have noted. 59.167.73.44 05:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Response to comment about anonymity - the issue is not so much whether we identify as real people with contact information but rather that our wikipedia contribution history is known and in fact we are the sum of our edit history, not any identity, real or otherwise that we might claim, see for example this New Yorker cartoon. I have been editing Wikipedia for just over a year, and my edits can be seen and thus assessed through this and similar tools which navigate to those articles which I have edited the most. Whether or not my edits are useful or not is another question, but they can be identified and I am not anonymous as far as the wikipedia is concerned, because as a logged in user, my edit history can be seen. The benefits of having an account are explained at Wikipedia:Why create an account?. Hope this helps--A Y Arktos 06:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I am very interested in Dean McVeigh and I run a website and I believe the issue of businessmen shutting down other website is an unAustralian and an outrage.Kipps 02:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC) (User's second edit. Suspect sockpuppet Xtra 03:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC))
  • And which 'blog told you to come here and say that, mate? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The "citation needed" notes on many of the key points indicate the article has verifiability problems. --Carnildo 04:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obviously this article was started by someone with a direct involvement in the MUSU matter, and equally obviously it has been attacked by others with some other kind of involvement. Since Wikipedia allows anonymous editing it really can't complain when this kind of thing happens, and it will go on happening at an increasing rate, as Wikipedia becomes better known, until something is done to tighten up the rules on who may edit. That being said, the MUSU case is a major story in Melbourne, and McVeigh is a fairly major player in it. It may be that all the allegations against him are bunk (I have no idea), but that doesn't alter the fact that they have made him newsworthy and notable. Obviously if the article is to be kept it needs vigilant editing to keep out everybody's POV. I'd also like to know User:Ambi's rationale for blocking User:Unitypigdog. He obviously has a direct involvement in this matter but so far as I know there is no rule against him editing on those grounds, and he hasn't been abusive or unco-operative. Adam 06:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I have edited the article removing the unsubstantiated allegations and adding material from verifiable sources such as newspaper reports. No change of vote position from Keep. All people who voted Delete have indicated that they support deletion to be advised as requested. Capitalistroadster 09:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • For vote, we meant of course, expressed an opinion towards arriving at a community concensus view.--A Y Arktos 10:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Please also note that I removed the AfD notice from the article. I will try to restore it. Capitalistroadster 09:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • As indicated above, some people think that this might be better merged with the Melbourne University Student Union. That may well be a good idea especially if there is continued POV editing. Capitalistroadster 10:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I reiterate my view that the article should be kep, that is clear but equally clear is that those editing have a point of view. I certainly do. The article needs improvement, particularly with its references. Linking to articles in The Age and The Australian when they evince a strong point of view also doesn't address the problem.

One assertion by Capitalistroadster contained the assertion that one of McVeigh's targets "fled overseas" to escape "charges." No part of that is true and nor is it even claimed that "charges" were laid. Presumably if the target in question, Andrew Landeryou, had fled and then returned nearly a year ago, he would have been punished for doing so. If Wikipedia is sensitive about defamation as some suggest, such claims should be considered carefully.

The only Police investigation confirmed is into Dean McVeigh's actions, which is supported by a document that was at one stage linked to I see but is now deleted.

McVeigh's actions as Liquidator of MUSU, particularly the contempt of court issue is a big deal and needs a separate treatment from any article about the Student Union. They are very different subjects. I have been reading through the Wikipedia rules and notice the mandate to assume good faith. I see very little of that here and what seems to be my some a manic determination to make political points. There are real issues of controversy here and they should be addressed correctly. I would like to contribute to that and I would hope a compromise could be achieved. 59.167.73.44 12:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

  • DELETE. If any of that is notable (and true) then it belongs as a small part of an entry about the Union. Midgley 23:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Melbourne University Student Union as per above, and general precedent for people who are otherwise non-notable except for their connection to a notable incident or institution. MCB 02:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Johnnie Cochran has an article, and all he ever did was be a lawyer for prominent clients in prominent cases. Except in the matter of scale, how is this different? Adam 03:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Response liquidating the Melbourne Student's Union and "worldwide fame for successfully defending Simpson" seem to have different levels of notability. I would have thought the challenging task of defending Simpson and the novel trial indicates leadership in his profession. McVeigh does not seem notable in his profession - perhaps perfectly competent (I am not going to juge) but seemingly only a practitioner not it seems a leader breaking new ground.--A Y Arktos 05:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I acknowledged the difference in scale. We have articles on local councillors, even though they are not as notable as presidents and prime ministers. By same token, we can have an article on an accountant who provides services to notable clients, just as we have articles on lawyers who are notable only because of the services they provide to celebrity clients. Adam 06:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the defence of OJ Simpson, moreover the successful defence, was pretty remarkable, not merely a service for a notable client. More than 10 years later that trial is memorable and, although I have extremely little interest in US celebrity news, I would be prepared to discuss at a backyard barbecue ( but perhaps not stop a barbecue) on the subject "how come Simpson was not convicted?" No one got Skase, but I do not recall McVeigh's name in connection with Qintex. No doubt he was involved, I don't disbelieve the Age assertion - but not prominently. I think we should write the articles on the two professional bodies first and then look for prominent practitioners. As Ambi put it, the poor chap who is "just a random insolvency practitioner who had the misfortune to run into some vengeful student politicians with a lot of time to spare" should not be our choice of prominent accountant in Australia.--A Y Arktos 06:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Given that he was notably involved with several cases, would it be possible to merge him with OJ's trial? Andjam 10:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --nixie 01:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Clearly notable involved in probably the highest profile Liquidation in Melbourne, Australia for several years. Like him or not - and I don't - he is clearly notable on any measure of public notoriety and involvement in newsworthy events. DarrenRay 13:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I would like to know why some people express a view here about wanting an article deleted without explaining their view. I don't think their view should be considered unless are willing to justify it. DarrenRay 06:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Merging is an inadequate solution as it would delete all references not relating to MUSU, which while the principal reason for his notability would exclude reference to a highly unusual event, his removal by a Supreme Court judge in the Rug's Galore case and his involvement in other interesting Melbourne insolvency cases. I am yet to see a valid argument supporting its deletion, he is clearly notable on any objective test, with very many media reports about him and his profile as an insolvency practitioner and so on. The article is substantially revised and while different from what I would write, I am happy to accept as an agreed compromise so we can move on. I have many other articles I am keen to attend to. DarrenRay 01:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Melbourne University Student Union. This is not a keep vote. Stifle 00:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. A notorious individual, high level of notoriety. Will be useful for business studies students (here in North West England we ARE studying him!). He is clearly notable on any measure of public notoriety and this is a useful

resource. --Sunfazer (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep or Merge. Gotta be some sensational grain of truth in here. Garglebutt / (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge with MUSU. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ambi. Cursive 12:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
For any particular reason? Per a genuine debate. DarrenRay 12:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Per Ambi: He's just a random insolvency practitioner who had the misfortune to run into some vengeful student politicians with a lot of time to spare. Nothing has changed. Cursive 12:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Hardly a random. Eminently notable on any objective test, notable in press articles, prominent events, especially MUSU but many other things. Very few Liquidators/Administrators are ever removed by a court for their conduct, this itself is highly noteworthy. To say nothing of the attempt to shut down critics' websites using contempt of court applications. I am neither a student politician nor do I have any time to spare. I would appreciate you withdrawing the personal implication. Nothing has changed from what? DarrenRay 12:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
What personal implication? There's nothing there stating that you're the student politician that is being referred to. Nothing has changed from what Ambi said (which I directly quoted). That's what I meant by saying "Per Ambi" - I assumed you thought that something had changed between when he said that and when I was agreeing with him and hence felt that my justification was invalid. I'm sorry if you misunderstood. Cursive 12:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you should take Cursive's application of Ambi's quote as a personal slight. I happen to agree with them and that isn't intended to be personally against you. You're being too sensitive, IMO. Specially when you ask people to explain themselves further. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Much better put than I managed. Cursive 12:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I accept your apology. Thank you, I'd be grateful for a response on the issues, because Ambi's assertions are a) false, b) a personal attack and c) not much of a contribution to the debate about the man's notability. DarrenRay 12:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I've spent more than enough time on this AfD. I stand by my original comments, and disagree with your assertion about Ambi's assertions. Cursive 13:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Ambi's comments were not a personal attack. She was merely expressing her opinion. She doesn't think the guy is notable; I don't know what more of a "contribution" you expect. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd welcome a debate on the issues around his notability that I've raised. I may misunderstand the nature of this particular page and if I have I apologise in advance. But I think there such substantial evidence of his notability that there seems to be some reluctance. btw, if Sarah Ewart is your real name congratulations for editing without a pseudonym as so many do. DarrenRay 14:18, 3 March 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.