Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karayana and David Dom

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 DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karayana and David Dom

Following discussion at WP:DRV these are being returned for re-examination. Currently no opinion. There appears to be no way to show that these individuals satisfy WP:BIO using Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Further, WP:V is not negotiable, and an organisation's website cannot be used to verify that someone is/is not a member. Delete unless information from independant sources shows notability.
brenneman(t)(c) 01:26, 2 February 2006

  • Delete as unverifiable and not notable. Even the notability of the organisation itself has not been shown, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Order of Druids. (That would have been the only possible merge target, AFAICT). Kusma (討論) 01:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 01:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Since the website isn't notable, its members should go too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all the above. Pilatus 04:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per discussion in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_Order_of_Druids. --Bugturd Talk 12:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I note, too, that the only source citation is the website for the New Order of Druids, and I would expect at the very least that an article about an important person would contain verifiable source citations bearing on that person and his contributions, not merely about an organization he belonged to. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable people. The logic of the nom is sound - after all this time no verifiable source of notability has been shown. Obina 20:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - User:Nae'blis's investigation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Order of Druids I think estabslihes the non-notability of that organisation: these people's main claim to notability resides in their position within that group: holding a position within a non-notable group is non-notable. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 21:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: following JzG's opinion below: my concern with notability is a concern about verifiability and maintainability. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 22:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable from reliable sources. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 10:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. --Kinu 19:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Organization was started last September, as near as I can tell, and they are not notable (or even really verifiable) yet. Most internet links come from webrings, link pages, and other self-applied references. I have as yet been unable to talk with them on their forums due to registration difficulties. If the group takes off, I will gladly revisit my opinion on both N.O.D. and the founders. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:43, 6 February 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.