Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Ogger

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 per consensus-overriding policy concerns. Quoting from the policy WP:BLP:

This article is a biography of a living person involved in a controversial topic. It is sourced only by unreliable sources: two websites of uncertain provenance ([1], [2]) and by a Usenet post ([3]). This is unacceptable under WP:BLP and WP:V. It does not matter that more reliable sources may not exist or may be difficult to gather; in this case we should simply not have an article on this person. Sandstein 08:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Pilot (Scientology)

The Pilot (Scientology) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article is only sourced by websites, not by published sources. I also have a concern because the information in the article, which as far as I know is all true, could be harmful to the subject. Steve Dufour 14:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No printed sources exist for "The Pilot." However, he was a leading and excessively influential figure in the 1990's Freezone Scientology movement. All the information is cited and verifiable (and mostly has been stated on the Internet by Mr. Ogger himself as is evidenced by the citations). This is someone people want to learn about. If any information in the article is potentially harmful to Mr. Ogger, it is not clear how as all of it has been openly discussed on the Internet by Mr. Ogger and is widely known amongst both Freezone and Church Scientologists.--CaptPostMod 15:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I moved the page to more directly reflect the title people interested in The Pilot are more likely to search for.--CaptPostMod 15:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said on the article's discussion page, I don't question that all the information in the article about Mr. Ogger is true. What I am concerned about is that now he is not involved with Scientology as a member or a critic but is working as a professional musician, so the article says. What if he applies for a job and someone looks him up on WP? His history could be a problem for him because of both the bad image of Scientologists in our society and the Church of Scientology's own history of persecuting its critics. Steve Dufour 15:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, lack of attribution to printed sources is to be preferred, but it is not binding. However, I do not see an notability associated with this guy. Ghits reveal mainly blogs, forums and mailing lists. As such, I think it fails notability criterion.

But The Pilot is iconic in terms of the Freezone. His book Self-Clearing is seen by some as a further scripture to LRH's. To not have an article on him is akin to saying that Evangelical Christians would not be interested in an article on Billy Graham. The Pilot is someone that to Freezone Scientologists is seen as a guiding light and spiritual leader.CaptPostMod 15:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You or me or any other editor regarding something important does not make one worthy of an wikipedia article. Please see notability policy on who is considered notable enough. The article should make it very clear how he is notable. If you can provide articles from reliable sources to establish his notability, I will be happy to retract my vote. --soum (0_o) 16:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I don't see how it violates notability. As mentioned on the notability page, notability is not the same as fame. For those interested in Freezone Scientology, The Pilot is a personage that will inevitablly come up. The page clearly states that The Pilot was a significant leader in the Freezone movement. I was not expressing personal feelings of importance, merely stating that The Pilot is a notable person in the subject of Freezone Scientology. I myself found the WP article originally in my search for more information on Scientology. I am not the page's originator, but I know that I'd looked to WP to answer more of the questions I'd had about this name (The Pilot) that crops up in almost every lengthy Scientology discussion or page on the Net.CaptPostMod 17:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Just mentioning that he was a significant leader does not mean anything here, until and unless it is attributed to some reliable source (this is an openly editable wiki, anyone can add anything. Thats why the attribution is needed to make the info verifiable. The notability criterion for biograhies of living persons states that one has to be the subject of write-ups from multiple reliable sources to be considered notable enough for an article. A cult following, or a belief in someones ideals etc etc are not binding to assert notability. Attribution to reliable sources is. So, instances of him being a subject of a handful of reliable sources (at least semi reliable, can be online or print or TV sources) is necessary to assert notability. No amount of evidence of forum discussion can assert it. --soum (0_o) 17:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

He's listed on the "Who's Who" of ARS, on all mirrors of the Freezone America Site, there is an entire page from the CoS dedicated to him, there is a Self-Clearing Academy dedicated to him, the Skeptic Tank makes many references to him, Operation Clambake references him, he is discussed in the PNOHTEFTU (which is itself a very popular Freezone book), he is mentioned on Clearing.org... The list just keeps going on. Reliability in terms of being interviewed by Katie Couric doesn't exist, but he is widely discussed and notable person in the Freezone. Just google '"The Pilot" Scientology' and you will have an outstanding number of sources on him appear. What makes you feel he is not notable?CaptPostMod 17:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Just post the links (make sure they are not forums or personal blogs). It will establish notability! --soum (0_o) 18:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There are already links to non-blog/forum sites in the article. While many more are available, how could they be incorporated. It hardly seems useful to the article to have a stub followed by 25 links. Suggestions for how to incorporate?CaptPostMod 18:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There are links to his own site, a site attacking him, and a Usenet post of his. Interesting stuff maybe, but still not reliable sources. Steve Dufour 19:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That 100% fails to help in suggesting how to incorporate other links into the article. And if you acknowledge that there is a link to his own page, then you acknowledge that he does not fear this material would be damaging to his person if linked to him (as there is even a picture included).CaptPostMod 19:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I may have jumped the gun on saying the article was potentially harmful to him. I was only going by what the article itself said, that he was no longer active in the Scientology controversies and went back to private life as a professional musician. The problem of his notability still remains. But if you can come up with some at least semi-reliable sources I will ask that my nomination for deletion be withdrawn. Steve Dufour 20:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to handle the potential harm issue: Ken Ogger is not currently working as a professional musician. I happened to track down what he is doing, but as it is not pertinent to The Pilot, I'm leaving it off the article and this page.--CaptPostMod 20:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If he is unnotable, then how did you yourself come to view the article? CaptPostMod 23:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking that. I am on a "crusade" (if you will pardon the politically incorrect word) against the overcoverage of Scientology by WP. I was checking out some of the low-importance and stub articles among the 272 Scientology project articles for some that could be deleted. My concern for Mr. Ogger's privacy is real however. If this is not a problem, as it seems not to be after all, and some small notability for him established I will vote to keep. Steve Dufour 23:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there, like, a history of Freezone on the net that mentions him? Steve Dufour 20:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Here there is-->http://www.modemac.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl/Is_Scientology_a_religion . But I can't see how that could be incorporated into the article. Any suggestions? CaptPostMod 23:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This is somewhat helpful. But still it is just a personal website of a Scientology critic. Steve Dufour 23:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 19:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment is this guy notable, and why isn't he any different than gajillions of other self-published philosophers, "poets, priests and politicians", bloggers, etc.? According to the article he's widely followed in an offshoot of a religious sect, without any indication of how numerous this group is which would affect whether he's notable or not. Carlossuarez46 22:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

He's very notable as perhaps one of the premiere Freezone Scientologists. However, producing the number of members of the Freezone would be virtually impossible. No one is even quite certain how many people are in the official Church as counts vary widely depending on if you go with the Church or secular sources. CaptPostMod 23:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info; how can we reconcile a claim of notability with an undeterminable (or possibly non-existent) following? Carlossuarez46 19:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Carlos, where did you get this perception that the Freezone is a "possibly non-existent" following? Can you please cite the exact user comment on IMDB that you got this from? -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Your apology is accepted. Carlossuarez46 20:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If it pleases you to think that someone offered you an apology, I doubt there's anyone who could talk you out of it. What's your source this time, every other letter of a Bazooka Joe comic? -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Your Incivility warranted an apology, which I graciously accepted. As you should by now know, that notability is the burden of the promoter, and here, no one apparently can say how notable this guy is because although he may be "notable" among a following we cannot know how large that following is, making him no more notable that the pastor of any other church. Carlossuarez46 21:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a different set of rules for Scientology articles than for others. :-) Steve Dufour 23:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You can stop graciously accepting an apology that was not offered. As long as you show no regret nor remorse for your lie-telling, no apology to you is forthcoming. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi A.F. I think you are misunderstanding where Carlos is coming from. He does not seem to be involved in the Scientology debate at all, but is just pointing out the lack of sources for the article. As you know I am pro-Freezone. Steve Dufour 05:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"[he] is just pointing out the lack of sources for the article." No, I think if you'll look you'll see he is doing much more than that; he is actually attempting to assert that the Freezone is "possibly non-existent", an extraordinary claim and one that makes very little sense. Does he seem to be involved in the Scientology debate? Not so far as I've seen, but that hardly means that his motives and methods are not open to question, and given recent history I think there is more than ample reason to question both. As for "knowing" that you are pro-Freezone, I must say that it surprises me to hear you say that. I can't really say that your actions and words have ever given me a confident sense of what you do truly stand for. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You could take the things I say at face value. You don't have to, but it would be the best way to understand where I am coming from. Wishing you the best. (Carlos seems to cruise the AfD discussions, I don't think he has a special agenda with this one or the other one.) Steve Dufour 02:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Free Zone (Scientology). I think there is a central point that all participants in this discussion need to be aware of: self-published sources are a valid source regarding their own views (when such views are the subject of discussion, of course.) It might be hard to establish enough notability for an independent article, but establishing enough notability within the Free Zone to discuss him as part of the Free Zone should be rather easy to do. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Looks like there is a good faith here by recent editors to expand the article as per notability. Smee 05:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC).
• Keep - trying to remove Internet based sources for Scientology is fundamentally querulous - the story of the fall of Scientology since 1995 has basically played out on the Internet, and print sources are of distinctly lower quality on the matter. That is, deleting because "Internet sourcing" on this one is basically an excuse. WP:RS is a guideline, not a suicide pact. As for notability in his area, the article establishes that pretty clearly - David Gerard 09:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The fall of Scientology? Is its winter coming up then? :-) Steve Dufour 23:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - a notable figure in Scientology. The article is however a stub and should be marked as such. If the main Freezone article ever gets filled out he will certainly feature there. Merging into 'Freezone' I'd accept as well. --Hartley Patterson 16:19, 3 May 2007 (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.