Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les Balsiger (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Les Balsiger (2nd nomination)

Les Balsiger (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

An editor argues that this is an attack page. I disagree and vote Keep, given the news sources cited in the article. But we should take allegations that something is an attack page seriously, so I'm bringing it here. Note that this is a different Les Balsiger than the subject of the first AFD. NawlinWiki 00:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This is an attack on this person by some one who is obviously Catholic and disagrees with him. One of the citations is a blog, which is hardly proof of anything and the other citations are all from religous organizations except one which was reporting and attack on this man. He is of no note and this all happened years ago. And if it is a different person the result will be that people who google the name will be confused, it is hardly a name like smith or jones. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.211.55.195 (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Not a singe example is provided to demonstrate this is an attack. `'mikka 03:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral there was POV disparagement in the 'fifteen minutes of fame' opener which I have removed. --Steve <sub>(Slf67)</sub> <sup>talk</sup> 00:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "Fifteen minues of fame" was just a cute wording not a disparagement; non-encyclopedic style anyway, so your deletion was sure OK. `'mikka 03:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the press coverage of this individual is sufficient to make the topic notable. As for POV concerns, those can be addressed, that is not sufficient justification for deletion. TSO1D 00:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep there is nothing 'slamming' this man in the article as it is currently written. Nashville Monkey 01:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Although the article itself could use a little clean-up, I don't view it as an attack page.Ganfon 01:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• DeleteThis is old information from 1993 and is implying that he "led" a major attack on catholicism. We deleted a page about him before what makes this difference how does user Nawlinwiki "know' that is is not the same person. BillBates —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.111.81.43 (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
• keep; verifiable and certainly the event was notable. `'mikka 03:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Placing an artricle for deletion with vote "keep" is not best approach IMO. A better solution would be to block the anon for trolling, if he fails to understand wikipedia policies or at least to register, so that it could be possible to tutor him in his talk page. `'mikka 03:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability and verifiability requirements met with non-trivial coverage by multiple, reliable sources. Deletion is rarely the best option for WP:BLP or WP:NPOV issues. -- Satori Son 03:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As usual, I'm with Vic. This person was, given the sourcing, notable, and his actions were certainly verifiable. Remove information that violates BLP guidelines, but not sourced information. -- Kicking222 03:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notability has been established and it is sourced. However, it is totally unbalanced, but POV can be addressed. -- Aylahs ^(talk) 05:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The "campaign" (if you can call it that) is notable. I'm not sure, though, that there is enough for a reasonable article about Les Balsiger himself, though, as the only sources of information about him are newspaper articles telling about the campaign. It might be better to consider moving the article to a different name ... like the name of his organization or something. --BigDT 05:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment perhaps move it to his organization would be a better idea I agree with BigDT
• Keep as per Ganfon. Icemuon 13:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep guy passes WP:BIO - AfD is not the place to bring content disputes. WilyD 14:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. FirefoxMan 17:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The ... uh ... nominator is arguing keep, so surely something is wrong with what you wrote here. Do you mean Keep per nom? Or do you mean Delete for some hard to guess reason? WilyD 18:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I think its quite a good article and perhaps if it can be restructered and properly contributed to, it can be kept. Rasillon 20:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, it is well-sourced and the subject is notable, I also agree that this is a rather unorthodox AfD - this isn't the place for content issues.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, he seems notable enough. I made some changes in the article to make it more neutral in style. Steve Dufour 06:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with TSO1D above. highlunder 13:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - not quite as well known as Fred Phelps but IIRC there are plenty of printed references to him and his activities. Dragomiloff 06:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• move, do not keep as is unless there is some nformation about the person. As he apparently was acting for an organisation, perhaps the article could be retitled to either "The Protestent" or "Printed Page Ministry". It is the actions not the man who seems to be notable. I cannot determine whether the splinter group with which he is affiliated has a name--it it does, that would be the best title. DGG 23:20, 15 January 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.