Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 25

David Wilcock (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Speedied as "unverifiable", which I find to be a probably too bombastic reason. I have queried the admin who speedied it with no response. meco (talk) 03:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion as A7, the reason given in the db tag. --Coredesat 04:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per CSD A7 which was on the db tag.--Sandahl 04:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• endorse CSD A7. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 04:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. When I looked at the deleted edits, unverifiable sounded about right. The article was littered with "citation needed" tags since April of 2007. Most of all, the article claims this guy is a Conspiracy Theorist with no citations to back it up. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse as a valid A7 deletion. east.718 at 04:32, December 25, 2007
• Sorry for not having responded to your request earlier; too many things popped up in my schedule, and I genuinely forgot about your request. However, the point remains: the article generally makes unverifiable claims. Once those unverifiable claims are discarded, there remains no assertion of notability. DS (talk) 04:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment claims to be the reincarnation of Edgar Cayce; references are to his autobio, claimed on his website to be a bestseller, and similar self-published material. Technically this is not really A7, if he were truly the reincarnation of Cayce he would be notable. Nor is it strictly G1 nonsense, for how is WP to judge? And its not written as an advertisement. On the other hand there is no one who seems to think he is. There is really no point listing it at Afd, but it is not literally an A7. Last thing I heard, unverifiable is not a reason for speedy--nor should it be, for many people trying to delete articles say things are unverifiable as a matter of course. DGG (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral. As DGG stated, it doesn't strictly meet the CSD requirements. However, it would really be a waste of time to restore it and send it to AfD, as it seems that consensus would have it deleted again. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and List - I know, an off the wall recommendation but hear me out :-) As DGG says above the grounds for the A7 are not strictly correct. In addition he has a published book on the subject here with some sort of review here. Also a local radio interview here. Whilst I am sure that none of this will add up to a row of beans at AfD it does move it out of the speedy category. BlueValour (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. You know, CSD A7, at the time of its community ratification, had a really good phrase -- "remotely plausible" -- to describe the assertion of notability. This prevented assertions like "John Doe is God" (which, on a literal level, provides enormous notability, if true) from being used to obtain an AfD. I don't know when the language was excised; but, because that was actually the language the community ratified, I still regard it as authorative. This instance is still a close case, I guess, because a claim of reincarnation is considered plausible by some major world religions, but the "remotely plausible" language answers the comments above that worry about this case presenting a problem with the literal reading of A7. A7, as ratified, was actually better. Xoloz (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

  I think there's a distinction to be drawn between "John Doe is God" and what I imagine this article to be about (although I can't be sure, since it's deleted), in that the latter is presumably sincerely believed by someone. See also my comments below. David Mestel^(Talk) 23:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per Xoloz, there are many such deletions: "Joe Blow is the king of the world", "Jane Doe is the most beautiful girl in the world", etc. which are proper A7's, this no different. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn: A desultory reading of CSD A7, and particularly its second sentence, shows that this article is incompatible with it on its face. The criteria for speedy deletion are strictly restricted, and rightly so: it allows for deletion without scrutiny by the wider community. The article may or may not be unverifiable, but that's a matter for AfD, which gives an opportunity for sources to be found, and for arguments to be made by the wider community - for example, while it may not be verifiable that he was actually reincarnated, his claims so to have been may well be so. And besides, what harm does it do for the article to exist for five more days, under a "this article is being considered for deletion" banner? David Mestel^(Talk) 23:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)