Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Andrew Villeneuve

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Grounds for deleting an article

  • No potential to become encyclopedic
  • Original research
  • Inappropriate user pages in excessive or stubborn cases.
  • Vanity page
  • Advertising or other spam
  • Completely idiosyncratic non-topic

The above represent the only grounds for which an article may be deleted. Radicalsubversiv has failed to specify which of these grounds he is relying on in making his case for deletion. If he does not or cannot, the vote should stop and the article restored. Inventing new grounds of "dubious notability" seems particulary dubious to me. Libertas

[edit] Is Andrew Villeneuve Notable?

Consider this: Prominent daily newspaper the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and KGW TV a television station based in Portland that services the NorthWest, the campus based University of Washington Daily, Portland Newsradio 750 KXL, Spokane Public Radio KPBX, KOMO AM 1000, tv station King 5, the Seattle Times, the Bremerton Sun, KIRO TV, New Black City Radio have variously interviewed, quoted from or referred to Villeneuve as the spokesperson for the anti-initiative forces. [1]

In light of the airplay and column inches this lefty activist gets, which probably number in the hundreds of separate occasions, with only a selection discoverable online, I think the "dubious notability" claim is utterly spurious and should be rejected, with prejudice. (What does that mean I always wondered but it sounds good). To characterize this as a "little bit of press" is just plain false. It is as several here have commented, this smells of vendetta and I'm not sure if my theory is right but if it walks like a duck... Libertas

[edit] Is this Deletion Proposal Vendetta Driven?

Just as Radicalsubversiv has pointed out that a voter here is the subject of the article, and therefore presumably disqualified from expressing a view contrary to Radical's, it is perhaps worth mentioning that Radical comes from a different stripe of Washington leftist than Villeneuve does. Radical is clearly to the right of Villeneuve, with the former supporting Dean or Kerry and the latter perhaps supporting Nader. While I don't see much difference between them, those voting should be aware of the huge differences within the left and the venom with which they are conducted.
An example of this kind of bitter internal left dispute is below published in a leftist publication where they call each other fraudsters, liars, apologists, Trotskyists, et al:
An International Fraud
Thank you for an excellent article on activism ("A New Era of Activism," Oct. 4). I do, however, have one minor quibble: your reporter treated the International Action Center (IAC) as a legitimate player in the broader movement. In reality, the IAC is a front for the Workers World Party, a small Trotsky-ist outfit.
Using their generic-sounding name, and the personality of former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, the IAC passes itself off as a legitimate organization for the purposes of organizing mass protests. To make matters worse, right-wing pundits, like Washington Times columnist Robert McCain, are beginning to take notice of this and use it as ammunition against the entire movement. :Unless we wish to be associated with apologists for the Soviet invasion of Hungary, activists must start treating the IAC as what it really is: a fraud.
(name deleted to protect author's privacy, but author was Radicalsubversiv)
I think this raises serious issues of credibility about the proposal to delete. I am not familiar with the details of their disagreements, but it is my observation that such spats within the far left are particularly common and nasty. I believe therefore that Radicalsubversiv's agenda makes him incapable of approaching this deletion from a NPOV perspective. It is unhealthy for those with personal agenda to be proposing the deletion of opponents' pages. I believe this vote should be delayed for some to allow more research and discussion on the Talk page. Villenueve's role is clearly significant and should be explored further by those of impartial views. I very much doubt there will be a consensus on this issue in these circumstances.
Libertas
First off, I consider this whole matter irrelevant to the question of the article's notability, and would remove it altogether if I were not the subject. My politics are irrelevant to this matter, but I'll happily state for the record that I have no political beef with Andrew, have promoted his blog, and agree entirely with his opposition to Tim Eyman. As to the other matters: I supported Howard Dean in the primaries and worked on the Dean campaign in both WA state and NH, and yes, I wrote a letter to the editor of a small New England weekly in 2001 about the anti-war movement. If either action somehow casts doubt on my conduct on Wikipedia, so be it. RadicalSubversiv E 07:44, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I should add that I have no knowledge of Andrew's position on the 2004 presidential race or the politics of anti-war protests. RadicalSubversiv E 15:07, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Do not edit or remove other people's comments. That is highly inappropriate. You have challenged my right to comment on this proposed deletion. I have challenged the whole basis for the deletion as being motivated by factors other than notability. I have already clearly demonstrated the man's prominence in Washington state politics. And you admit to supporting Howard Dean, which I assume means you had a different view to Villeneuve and were political rivals to that extent. The letter demonstrated merely the venom of exchanges within the left and the personal hatreds that emerge within it. Justice must not only be done but seen to be done. I think you would do well to focus on writing neutral articles and not disparaging others as being of "dubious notability." I think that casts more doubt on your conduct than anything else you've done or said. Libertas