Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth O'Keefe

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 - kept

[edit] Kenneth O'Keefe

vanity page, person is not notable--Silverback 18:08, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• DELETE -- This appears to be a vanity page much like the André Nilsen page. The person is not-notable, and apparently added the page himself. See the diatribe on the talk page. Even if you think this person is notable, it is just for one event, the organizing of the short failed human shield episode, and a mention on that page should be enough Human shield action to Iraq--Silverback 18:08, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • • Comment See talk page for discussion on notability of human shield action and irrational denial of this on Silverback's part. It seems Silverback's prerequisite for non-notability is that it doesn't suit his politics. I'd also note that, although the human shield action didn't avert an invasion it may have played a part in stopping the US from bombing critical civilian infrastructure as they did in 1991 (a war crime), so in this regard it was a success. Christiaan 19:16, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • CommentThis man's one claim to fame is a publicity stunt, and for that we need an article to note his place of birth and marital troubles? The U.S. knew it was going to have to rebuild any infrastructure that it destroy, which is why it didn't destroy infrastructure even after the shields short stay. The shields knew it too, that is why they refused to "protect" military sites. However, despite Christiaan's presumptions, this is not about politics but about a case similar to the Andre' Nilsen affair, where there were no pointers to O'Keefe, until Christiaan, who was also a shield, planted the shield stories. How does a publicity stunt compare to winning a prestigious scholarship? Keep in mind these shields are not a part of a cohesive movement with any kind of integrity, some are not even pacifists and some (the Romanians) were even supporters of the Saddam regime.--Silverback 11:43, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment It's not surprising you see it in this way. The action was founded upon and relied on publicity, and, second, it doesn't suit your politics. Hence your label of "publicity stunt". I would agree that one reason the U.S. didn't target critical civilian infrastructure is because it might have to rebuild it (after all the invasion was an "investment" in self-interest) but for one critical point: lucrative reconstruction contracts are very much in the narrow interests of the U.S. power-elite. PR is another problem. Of course PR wasn't as much of a concern in 1991 because the world didn't have a laser-like focus on Iraq as they did in 2003 (which included the human shield action). The shields refused to station themselves at military sites because they were not there to protect military inrastructure but civilian infrastructure, that was bombed by the U.S. in 1991 - it's quite simple really. --Christiaan 14:41, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • And you are being extremely dishonest Silverback As for your inflammatory accusation that I "planted" the human shield stories I assume you'll be able to explain why this user is clearly the first person to mention the human shield action on Wikipedia at 01:27 on 31 Jan 2003 [1] . Which is interesting because not only had I never heard of Wikipedia on the 31st of January 2003 but I was on a double decker bus traveling to Iraq at the time. Honesty is the best policy Silverback, you should try it some time. --Christiaan 14:46, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment, DISHONEST???, your example that I am dishonest is that I missed an entry that doesn't exist anymore except in a history? The worst you should be able to say is that "Silverback had bad intelligence", instead you are calling me a liar, where have we heard that before? On your talk page, you accused me not liking O'Keefe, but on the contrary I found his account engaging and quite similar with my own journey towards withholding allegiance to any state. You've admitted that you are no pacifist and stated you wanted to shove depleted uranium down my throat. I am more of a pacifist than you, this latest gulf war is one of the first I have considered worthy of supporting. It is one of the most moral in history, if you think that doesn't say much for the other wars in history, you are right. BTW, if you want to read O'Keefes story, the talk page is incomplete, you will have to read the fuller account in the initial entry of the history of this page I proposed for deletion. I like O'Keefe, I think he underestimated the purity of U.S. motives in this latest gulf conflict, thus was misguided in this action that is his one claim to fame, but given his bad experiences with the U.S. government perhaps his lack of objectivity is understandable.--Silverback 21:17, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Call it what you want Silverback, either way you look at it you betrayed other wikipedians by trying to make out that I was deceitful. You could have apoligised. What's the problem with Depleted Uranium, harmless as ice cream last time I talked to you. And please, let's minimise discussion of the Iraq war, your attempts to label it moral induces a strange mixture of laughter and vomit. --Christiaan 22:58, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment I apologize for using the term "planted", I was actually surprised I had used the term when I returned to this page and you had pointed it out. I thought I had used "posted". I want to cross it out and replace it with posted, but I am sorry to say, I don't know how.--Silverback 00:25, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Well that's all fine but I didn't even "post" the human shield story, I only elaborated on what was already here Christiaan 00:54, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The person created it himself because I suggested he do so when I first came across Wikipedia. Ken O'Keefe is of course notable; he organised the human shield action to Iraq of which there is an article on Wikipedia. Silverback seems to be on a little anti-left-wing crusade. Christiaan 12:30, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--Boothy443 11:33, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - although I would have had a third party create the page, the person seems newsworthy enough, provided this isn't an orphan page and there are in fact Wikipedia articles that link to him. 23skidoo 14:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep easily notable enough. If he or someone pretening to be him was naughty on your Talk page, that's bad, but doesn't mean this article should be deleted. Starblind 15:03, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Stron Keep - Couldn't care less about the Talk page, the article should stay. --Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 15:15, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - a controversial figure but definitely notable. Dbiv 15:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• It pains me to say DeleteWeak Delete, but I think that's the right thing to do. Much as I may agree with the guy's politics, and hold his actions in great esteem, it's an auto-biography (i.e. vanity) and very POV. RoySmith 15:34, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Upon re-reading the deletion policy, I've added "weak" to my delete vote, but think if it's kept, it deserves a {{NPOV}} tag. --RoySmith 18:49, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment I agree it's very likely an autobiography, but I don't see any POV there (can you point any out to me?) and neither POV not autiobiography alone is enough reason for deletion per the deletion policy. Starblind 16:37, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment I have to assume you are mistaken and talking about the talk page rather than actual page: Kenneth O'Keefe. Can you review or explain what exactly is POV on Kenneth O'Keefe? --Christiaan 17:17, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • The POV is "the Iraq invasion should have been averted". If it was written by a third-party, "Ken O'Keefe hoped he could avert the invasion of Iraq", it would have been a statement of fact (he did indeed have that hope) . Since it's written as an autobiography, it is (in my opinion) POV. --RoySmith 18:14, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Then it's worth noting that it was a third party who wrote that statement [2], and that such a statement is easily verifiable on the internet. --Christiaan 23:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Good short article, notable subject. Has the basic information so not a stub, and excellent NPOV, but we keep and improve stubs and POV articles anyway. Yes, it's autobiography, but that's not grounds for deletion either, just evidence of non-notability, and in this case we have other, better evidence. Andrewa 17:59, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. GRider\^talk 19:19, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - the right response would have been a POV-check or NPOV tag, or just, you know, editing it, as has now already been done. Samaritan 00:43, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Human shield action to Iraq where he is already mentioned. That is his sole claim to fame. Rossami (talk) 01:22, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, borderline notability, looking at the Talk page it comes across as vanity. Megan1967 04:07, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • • Comment I'm puzzled, is this a vote on the talk page or on the actual page? Christiaan 19:16, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough for human shield work. Capitalistroadster 10:10, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. I can't see this being expanded beyond it's current length, and half of it just repeats what is on the human shield article. Noisy | Talk 12:22, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. The Human shield action to Iraq is a much better place for this information. Carrp 17:38, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep ... just for the heck of it OneGuy 22:16, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• keep Michael Ward 04:45, 14 Jan 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.