Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Bourrie

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 was Speedy close bad faith nom by edit warrior - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Bourrie

This page is really nothing more than a vanity entry. This person has has little to no notabilty, whose emergance of publicity ocurred over a lawsuit filed against him. He doesn't fit the Professor bill of notabilty. He has written some books, that aren't best sellers. He has done freelance work for multiple Newspapers, hardly notable. Please read his blog, it alone get's very few comments. Google his image, and you'll turn up nothing. Pete Peters 03:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. It appears that when the article was created, the subject was making headlines for some statements he attributed to a politician, which drew possible lawsuit threats. Judging from the Talk page, the subject logged on and voiced some disagreements over how that topic was portrayed. Now it's not mentioned in the article at all. In other words, the subject may indeed be notable, but it's not being reflected in the current edit. -- H·G (words/works) 04:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Another comment, looking at the recent edit history, I'm wondering if this is a bad-faith AfD nomination. Pete Peters's first edit was to this article, and apparently he has been trying to "out" the subject's Wikipedia username. User:Arthur Ellis has been involved in this as well, apparently in reverting the changes to this page, and there seems to be a tiff growing between the two of them. This page was nominated for AfD only after Arthur Ellis reverted Pete Peters's last changes. -- H·G (words/works) 04:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The immediate background was this. --JGGardiner 04:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The more I look at this, the less I want to get involved. While I think some outside attention might be warranted in this article, or at least in regards to the edit war between two editors, this isn't the place for it. I vote speedy close. -- H·G (words/works) 04:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems reasonably notable - several non fiction books, so what if they are not best sellers, and a member of the Canadian parliamentary press gallery, so no slouch as a journalist. --Michael Johnson 05:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as a procedural decision. What I see here is a content dispute plain and simple which has led one party to nominate the article for AfD. I second H·G, some sort of outside attention or mediation is probably warrented here. I've tagged it NPOV because it looks like verifiable information has been removed and the current iteration of the article is a fluff piece. Still, that isn't grounds for deletion and while a case for WP:BIO could be made, let that be made at a later date when cooler heads can prevail.--Isotope23 12:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I googled him and found 83,600 hits including reviews of his books, discussions of his fossils, articles he had written, etc. 64.26.170.192 12:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Although I agree that this article is more trouble than it is worth, that's not a criteria for deletion. He's not exactly well-known for his books but he has several and I think Hemp got some attention, particularily in certain communities (those inclined to agree with it before they cracked the spine). He's also had quite a number of stories in national newspapers. Although I gather he was a freelancer who did the Simcoe County beat, mostly from tiny Midland. 31,000 google hits (I used quotation marks). It could use some work but I'd keep it. --JGGardiner 15:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. He is notable enough as an author for inclusion. Bucketsofg✐ 15:37, 20 July 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.