Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Enyart


 * 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Kafziel asked me to clarify this — at the moment there is no consensus to delete this article, and the default result in those situations is a keep. There are references out there, which a couple of users have pointed to, which is good, but the article needs to be cleaned up. Failing that, I expect we will see it back here before long. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Bob Enyart

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not Notable per Wikipedia standards. Mksmothers (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Bob Enyart is not notable per Wikipedia standards. He has produced minor works for limited distribution and "printed" them via a xerox machine or a DVD copier. He currently broadcasts on a small pay-for-broadcast radio station in the Denver market. Although the wattage is large, KLTT offers no third-party ratings. The article is un-sourced, factually disputed, contains unverified claims and doesn't list anything currently noteworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mksmothers (talk • contribs) 00:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't find any significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Mostly just blogs and watchdog groups (either for or against him), and no sources for the many opinions and accusations. I tried to improve the refs but wasn't able to do so, and instead had to remove a lot of statements that were in violation of WP:BLP. Without those, he doesn't seem to add up to much. Kafziel Complaint Department 01:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't like Bob Enyart, but he does appear in scholarly literature and several times fold in reliable news sources . Notability is about the number of third party reliable sources documenting a topic; not the wattage of a radio station or the ratings of a show. -- Scarpy (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything that looks like significant coverage in the scholarly sources (just a sentence here and there) but it does look there might be some in the news. I'd be willing to change to keep if the sources can be used to add relevant content to the Wikipedia article; at the moment, none of the news sources are talking about anything that's actually in the current article. Kafziel Complaint Department 05:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * delete no content? Why isn't this being speedy deleted. This is not notable or even usable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.180.119.202 (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an argument for improving the article, not deleting it. I don't see any question about the notability here, just the article quality.-- Scarpy (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that's an argument that sources providing significant coverage (as required by the guideline) simply don't exist. At least, nothing I can see in any of the literature you linked to appears to be significant. Brief, passing mentions don't qualify. And for biographies of living persons, sources are not optional. Kafziel Complaint Department 16:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In the newsarchive results, there's four articles in the first page of results just on him; he's significant. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I said it looked like there were some in the news results. Now if someone wants to use those sources to actually add content to the article to make an assertion of notability, I'd switch my stance. At the moment, there's so little content it could almost be speedied under A7. Kafziel Complaint Department 00:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's true that a well referenced article written using reliable sources shows it's own notability. It's not true that a poorly written article that has been plagued by drive-by templating and had it's content hacked out rather that researched, corrected (if necessary) and built on, should be deleted because of the sabotage done by other editors. -- Scarpy (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Unsourced, controversial information about living persons is supposed to be removed immediately without discussion. That's WP:BLP. It so happens that he's a very controversial man, so almost the whole article was quotes, claims, and accusations. Without sources, all of that information needed to be removed. Accusations won't help here; I've already dealt with the edit wars over the last few days, and the edits made since then are all in keeping with policy. Kafziel Complaint Department 03:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is true that removing unsourced information from BLP articles is the lazy way to conform with wikipedia guidelines. What happened to this article -- removing every piece of information from it save one sentence and posting seven warning templates to alert a few hundred readers as to exactly how dangerous that one sentence is, when there is ample literature available to base the article on -- is just goofy. Don't be a goof. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment on the article, not on the contributors. It has nothing to do with being lazy, and the editor who removed the information is 100% correct in doing so. Unsourced information must be removed immediately, no matter what. Even if you immediately go and find a source, that's fine - you can put the information back in once you're ready to cite it properly, and not a moment sooner. BLP is currently our most strictly-enforced policy, and it's not because we admins have nothing better to do. Kafziel Complaint Department 00:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You can be "correct" and still be lazy, or maybe not lazy as much as capricious. Like all wikipedia guidelines, BLP guidelines are only enforced as the whims of editors. The longer you're around wikipedia, the more obvious this is. If someone really cared about the quality of the article they would improve it rather than blanking it. This is a WP:POINT on top of some WP:GAME served on an AfD. -- Scarpy (talk) 03:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, POINT would be speedy deleting the article right now. POINT is about not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, not just about making a point. AFD is a perfectly valid process that doesn't disrupt anything. If you feel time would be better spent improving the article with sources, you're welcome to do that. The sources you've linked to here are by no means conclusive;I would argue that most of them are not truly "independent" sources, since they are almost exclusively local coverage and therefore profit from whatever fame they can drum up related to their area. My local TV station did a story about people who look like their pets, but they don't have Wikipedia articles. You (or someone else) will actually need to choose some of those sources and use the information they contain to assert some kind of notability in the article. You can keep talking here, or you can do something about it. Kafziel Complaint Department 03:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am the person who removed every piece of information from the article. The templates were already there; they were simply more obvious with the lack of words masquereading as content. I disagree with you (Scarpy) that there is ample literature to base on article on. But I could be wrong, and nothing is stopping you from writing it. Mksmothers (talk) 02:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't duplicate things you put on my talk page in the AfD. Look, I'm guessing that I'm with you. Bob Enyart is a blight on Denver, and if I could somehow go back in time and prevent his conception, I would. But the fact is that he's here and notable, and every time some article like this gets axed it makes the people over at conservapedia right; you're letting the political bias of wikipedians come before it's mission to be neutral encyclopedia. Stop the AfD and do some work on the article. -- Scarpy (talk) 03:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks aren't constructive. Let's let the AfD run its course. The course can definitely move in your direction if you chose to add sourced material. I can't find any worthy of inclusion in wikipedia. 63.164.245.62 (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - I reviewed the articles mentioned above. They don't appear to be of a purely objective scholarly nature. Enyart appears to be in a rather limited niche with an interested, yet small following. The article in question does not seem to have any newsworthy/wikipedia worthy references that makes him any more than a charismatic church pastor and/or minor activist in a "fringe" social group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.164.245.62 (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Neutral. Does being a guest on a show (Politically Incorrect) multiple times denote sufficient notability? Or simply that he makes for good television? Are they one in the same? - RoyBoy 01:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's borderline. For instance, Kiva Kahl has been on Letterman lots of times and the AfD ended without consensus. A lot of suggestions were to merge and redirect to the show, but that probably doesn't work here because it's not all he's known for. I'd say it comes down to how much relevant information (and how much irrelevant information, for that matter) we can find reliable sources for. So far, not much. Kafziel Complaint Department 01:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep It's the academic articles which justify this--if he's used as a notably bad example, he's notable. Some short quotations from them to demonstrate the importance could well be added. DGG (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC).
 * Delete He is barely mentioned in the articles. If he was notable at least one of those articles would be specifically about him. Mksmothers (talk) 03:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You appear to be nominator of the article and deleter of most of its content: DO NOT VOTE TWICE!Peterkingiron (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ironically the mention that annoys me the most, may make him notable. "Walt Brown's website now mentions this "heaven on earth" solution and references Pastor Enyart." I've worked on the Walt Brown article from time to time. Brown is a notable conservative, him using Enyart would lead me to think he is notable in that circle. But one could argue as Brown is barely notable, Enyart is even less notable; flip side Enyart did get TV appearances. - RoyBoy 04:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment -- It is unfortuate that the Nominator has been allowed pregressively to delete most of the content of this article during the AFD process, leaving a virtually meaningless stub. How are the rest of us support to judge an article treated like that? The impression I get from old versions, via history, is that he is a militant anti-abortionist.  This article was tagged with "COI".  I suspect it is really Mksmothers who suffers from the conflict of interest.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's entirely possible. But COI is just a guideline, and BLP is policy. What I find unfortunate is how so many people have lamented the content removal, but nobody has used the sources to add content and assert notability. Kafziel Complaint Department 15:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment -- I think we've reached a consensus. There is no usable content on this page. Those who lament the lost potential are yet to take the initiative and add sourced content. Let's put this puppy out of its misery and delete it. Mksmothers (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The current state of the article doesn't really matter in an AFD. It's whether the topic is notable enough to warrant an article.  Like him or not, there are sufficient verifiable 3rd party sources available where this person is the subject for this article to meet WP:BIO once someone puts the effort in to put together an informative, well referenced article. --Rtphokie (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Without the sources, and its present state it should simply be "speedy deleted". Who is this "someone" that shoud put in the effort? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mksmothers (talk • contribs) 23:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment' Speedy delete is for articles that should have never been created. This is a stub.  Do you feel that all stubs should be deleted or just this one?  Also please dont forget to sign your comments.--Rtphokie (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete is also for articles that make no assertion of notability. This AFD makes lots of assertions, but the article itself doesn't. And can't, without reliable sources. To that extent, it does matter what the current state of the article is. Kafziel Complaint Department 23:37, 20 September 2008 (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.