Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacy Brooks

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 keep on withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 01:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stacy Brooks

Stacy Brooks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

"Stacy Brooks is a critic of Scientology and member of the Lisa McPherson trust who accompanied Bob Minton and Mark Bunker on a number of anti-Scientology pickets. Like her late ex-husband Robert Vaughn Young, Brooks was formerly a Scientologist herself." That's the entire article right there. Non-notable bio, maybe even eligible for a speedy. Notability not asserted unless you think being a critic of Scientology makes a person special. Highfructosecornsyrup 05:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: Article has been completely rewritten since this was nominated. The above no longer applies as written Glen S 07:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge into Criticism of Scientology. I have actually heard about this person, unfortunately, the article is pretty short on any references to establish a claim to notability in her own right. Montco 05:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep I'd never touched that article but shes one of the worlds MOST notable critic of Scientology so when I saw this I quickly tried to show at least some justice more than the line that was there.
  As an ex-member that worked in Scientology's upper level management for 15 years, shes been on literally dozens and dozens of national television programs as an expert critic including 20/20, Dateline and 60 Minutes, as well as an expert witness in Scientology lawsuits and been published countless times in the press. Added some reliable sources.
  So article is now at least sourced, and if the television appearances etc dont ascertain notability then surely the fact that a google search for Scientology "Stacy Brooks" gives over 14,000 results - from what I could tell all her. Keep  Glen  07:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Well sourced providing passing the usual WP:BIO guidelines. Notable critic of Church of Scientology. --Oakshade 08:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

additional comment - Noticing the noms edits on Scientology versus the Internet, it's talk page and this particular Carpet-bombing of "citation needed" tags, it seems this editor has demonstrated issues about criticism of Church of Scientology. This might be a bad faith nom. --Oakshade 08:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

If it had been about criticism, don't you think I would have simply tried to remove the criticism? The fact that I'm asking that the criticism be properly sourced bolsters the critics' position, not the Scientologists. And if applying a "citation needed" tag to sentences that lack citations is the wrong thing to do, then I guess I just don't understand the purpose of the tag. Mea culpa. Highfructosecornsyrup 15:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As well, this editor has put 4 articles up for deletion or merging in less than 12 hours. AndroidCat 14:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, four whole articles. And you think there's something wrong with that? This article was a two-sentence unsourced stub when I nominated it. Highfructosecornsyrup 15:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Nothing apparently wrong with the article --Eqdoktor 08:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - article is sourced, person has been mentioned in print several times. --AlexWCovington (talk) 09:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - possible COI nomination. yandman 10:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Eqdoctor--Buridan 14:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Withdrawn. As Glen S has noted, the article has been completely rewritten since I nominated the original. It now has proper references and sources. Highfructosecornsyrup 15:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - bad faith nom, as per AN/I incident for nominator being anti Co$ criticism based sock editor. ThuranX 15:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Being accused of being a sock doesn't make it so. Thanks for trying to perpetuate the lie. Highfructosecornsyrup 15:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep good faith nomination. But the article as I read it now is sourced properly and she is a knowledgeable critic imo. ---Slightlyright 16:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - clearly bad faith nomination. Futurix 19:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

"Clearly". Of course. By the way, I've already withdrawn the nomination (boy, that's sure bad faith, isn't it?), so why are people still voting? Close it up, it's over. Highfructosecornsyrup 19:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

For whatever reasons you have withdrawn the nomination, in my opinion originally it was in bad faith. Futurix 22:49, 3 December 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.