- 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 DELETE, WP:SNOW and author's request (see below). -Doc 08:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After removal of unverifiable information, we're left with the fact that this is a State Department employee, that's all. Considering the appropriate care needed with biographies of living people, that's not a suitable article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lora Bofill. Frankly, these articles give an appearance of stalking. Picture should be deleted as well. --Michael Snow 04:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:V and WP:BIO. --Satori Son 04:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BIO. No claims of notability outside of an AOL commercial. 205.157.110.11 06:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, she's barely out of law school (and chose a functionary career instead of something exciting and notable). Good on her, we need bureaucrats, but it doesn't automatically rate you a Wikipedia entry. --Dhartung | Talk 06:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's a local politician who has received significant press coverage in both the Brownsville paper and the Logan (W.Va.) Banner. That means she meets WP:BIO, just as well as Thomas Esposito does. Mr. Snow is deleting anything he doesn't believe rather than anything he can't verify. A simple Google search will show Ms. Bofill's academic qualifications. I suspect that this is a very, very bad faith nomination. It's a flattering article with a flattering picture, compared to what she looks like now. Billy Blythe 09:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - if you've got anything to back up the accusation of "bad faith nomination", I'd like to see it. Tychocat 10:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I won't call it bad faith myself, but something's really fishy when Michael Snow has deleted information as "unverifiable" when it shows up at the top of a simple Google search. VivianDarkbloom 19:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Bad faith nomination:" (n) AfD jargon for an AfD nomination in which the nominator feels compelled to make personal attacks, unwarranted attacks, assume bad faith, or generally act like a %^&*. Come on, nobody uses the phrase "bad faith nomination" properly, so get off my back. Anyway, I do have a gut feeling that the guy's got ulterior motives, but can't prove it to the satisfaction of most. Billy Blythe 16:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact "nobody" uses the phrase properly does not justify you using it improperly. I won't quote WP:CIVIL to you, since it looks like we're 'way past that stage, thanks. Try to stick to the issues. Tychocat 04:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Bad faith nomination:" (n) AfD jargon for an AfD nomination in which the nominator feels compelled to make personal attacks, unwarranted attacks, assume bad faith, or generally act like a %^&*. Come on, nobody uses the phrase "bad faith nomination" properly, so get off my back. Anyway, I do have a gut feeling that the guy's got ulterior motives, but can't prove it to the satisfaction of most. Billy Blythe 16:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I won't call it bad faith myself, but something's really fishy when Michael Snow has deleted information as "unverifiable" when it shows up at the top of a simple Google search. VivianDarkbloom 19:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - if you've got anything to back up the accusation of "bad faith nomination", I'd like to see it. Tychocat 10:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. A Google of "mariju bofill" turns up only 20 distinct hits, with two mentions in the Brownsville Herald (the article is about passport applications, not her, though she is quoted as a source). Her academic qualifications are not at question, nor are her looks at issue. Tychocat 10:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "who?" Just zis Guy you know? 12:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nonnotable even under Billy Blythe's last version. NawlinWiki 14:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, Dhartung, Tychocat. Paddles TC 16:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep immediately and restart Afd after decent interval. Nominator vandalized article by removing easily verified statements that some here would think show notability. Nominator removed "unverifiable" information (scholarships/fellowships/awards/community service) even though it is documented by first non-Wikipedian links in Google search. VivianDarkbloom 19:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The nominator as removed material, as he said in his edit summary, 'he was unable to verify'. Please assume good faith. Actually, it is possible to verify most of it [1], but whilst that may make the moninator mistakles, it does not constitute vandalism. Calm down and present your case. --Doc 19:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I've now restored what I can verify. Perhaps more can also be restored after verification. (Oh, even if it's all verified, delete)--Doc 19:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but I think you're wrong. This isn't the first time I've seen this on AfD, and it's dubious behavior at best. Especially given Michael's rather odd personal borderline attack on Billy as a stalker. (It looks more like the reverse.) What's wrong with putting this on hiatus, given that Michael, even if he was acting in good faith, has completely polluted the discussion by his unexplained gutting of the article? How do you miss the top half dozen items in the basic Google search? VivianDarkbloom 20:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please start reading people's comments without assuming the worst. MS is suggesting that the article has the appearance of stalking, he made no comment about the actual motives of the creator. There is no reason to restart this debate - the article is sure to be deleted whatever happens.--Doc 20:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but I think you're wrong. This isn't the first time I've seen this on AfD, and it's dubious behavior at best. Especially given Michael's rather odd personal borderline attack on Billy as a stalker. (It looks more like the reverse.) What's wrong with putting this on hiatus, given that Michael, even if he was acting in good faith, has completely polluted the discussion by his unexplained gutting of the article? How do you miss the top half dozen items in the basic Google search? VivianDarkbloom 20:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would say a sizable count of Afd editors do view an article's most recent edit history prior to voicing their AfD opinion. Even with the additional information, there is not sufficent notablity per WP:BIO (or even for a politician for that matter.) 205.157.110.11 20:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the material deleted by Michael Snow does not do any more to establish notability than the parts he left in. FreplySpang 20:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:BIO. Mid-level civil servant with no significant claim of notability. --Allen3 talk 22:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BIO. (And the photo is creepy, too.) Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 23:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Those discussions I've read about AfD being a "snakepit" and a haven for incivility are dead-on true. I thought Mariju might qualify for a bio because she barely meets WP:BIO as I read it. I guess she'd have to be elected to truly qualify. Is anyone interested in why I wrote the article in the first place? Editcountitis, in part, although I did want to see how long it would last, to sort of see where WP:BIO ended and began. I thought I needed to create articles, and I don't write about fiction. I prefer writing about real people. What I didn't do is stalk. A stalker would have provided personal, invasive information. A stalker would have tried to bait his subject or paint the subject in a bad light or put in slightly wrong information to invite the subject's participation. I didn't do any of that, and I surely didn't even let on how I knew her, or my identity, which is none of anyone's business. Michael Snow hasn't responded to my refutations of his stalking allegations, so I deem them baseless and inflammatory. I think he needs watched for personal attacks. I probably, honestly wouldn't have had a thing to say on this AfD if I weren't attacked. I'm going to echo Zell Miller's remarks to Chris Matthews with respect to Michael Snow. "I wish we still lived in a time when a man could challenge another man to a duel." Billy Blythe 16:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete according to main author's wishes and WP:SNOW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy Blythe (talk • contribs)
- Delete per nom. --Maxamegalon2000 22:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.