Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Even Pedley


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus (6 keep, 4 delete, 5 merge, 1 redirect, discounting sockpuppets and IPs).  Rob e  rt  00:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

David Even Pedley
This person is of low noterity and is being used to push DOM Davidpdx 01:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

(Note:If this is deleted, the redirect (which is empty) should be deleted as well Evan David Pedley)


 * Delete not notable. The correctly spelled name gets less than 300 hits:   and no google news hits . --best, kevin  · · · Kzollman | Talk · · · 02:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I stand corrected. --best, kevin · · · Kzollman | Talk · · · 04:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable: If you drop the middle name, you get 139,000 hits, and most people that have middle names, rarely use those. The Wikipedia rules for keeping an article about an individual are only that they have been written about in two major publications, if I remember, and in this case this man has been not only in countless news articles around the world for many decades, even this year, almost two decades after his death, he has been talked and picture shown on national and international TV programmes, such as CBS 60 Minutes II. However, I admit that the article needs more work, and just pieced that together to get the article started in earnest. I don't know how an article about Pedley in any way pushes the DOM. Johnski 03:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Johnski. "used to push DOM"?  POV error exists only if permitted by editors.  Put an NPOV tag on the articles or sections you dispute, or edit them to fix them.  POV errors don't make a subject a less valid topic for an encyclopedia, although they clearly reduce the quality of the articles they exist in.   Un  focused  03:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I rewrote the article, though I will say that in my opinion it is pretty bad form to post such an obviously POV cut and paste job in lieu of writing an NPOV article. I removed all the information about Ben David... this isn't his article... as well as some of the unimportant biographical details about marriages, etc.  I'm going to tag this with "disputed facts" as soon as I can find the tags, because some of the information I have not been able to independantly verify yet.--Isotope23 12:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Should also mention that his name is spelled wrong ("EVEN" should be "EVAN" per all accounts). When I get a chance I'll add a section on pseudonyms... and the fact that he seems to have alternated between Evan David Pedley and David Evan Pedley. I'll see if I can find independant verification of what the guys real name is.--Isotope23 14:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination Davidpdx 04:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge NPOV content into Dominion of Melchizedek and delete-I tend to agree with Gene Poole, this imformation would be better in terms of adding it to the DOM page. Davidpdx 06:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment The previous comment about POV error exsisting only if it is permitted by editors is true. However, when you have one person chronically adding this stuff to over 10 diffrent pages, it becomes a bigger problem then just POV on one page. The editor in question has began a campign to add as many articles as he can as well as add DOM to countless pages to POV push and to try to justify DOM. It has gotten to the point of vandalism through adding and editing pages.

The editor in question also has claimed that there are numerous other people that support his version of the Dominion of Melchazidek article and continues to revert the article up to three times a day. If this isn't POV, then what the heck is? Davidpdx 04:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge NPOV content into Dominion of Melchizedek and delete. This individual has notoriety solely due to his criminal association with Melchizedek, and is best documented in the context of that article. Note that Johnski is strongly suspected of being a member of Melchizedek, and is quite possibly a member of the Pedley family. --Gene_poole 04:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Gene, the reason that I started this page about Pedley was to make the page less cluttered that you want to merge it to. Why do you try to insult me by claiming that you suspect me of being connected to a reputed crime family or the ecclesiastical government they are newsworthy of founding? I don't think this is the first time you got facts wrong, and here again, not that it is pertinent to deletion, I can not find any evidence to support your statement that "this individual has notoriety solely due to his criminal association with Melchizedek". Although Context Magazine says that Pedley founded Melchizedek in the 1950s, in fact, it appears that he died in the 1980's years before Melchizedek became newsworthy because of the allegations against the banks it licensed in the 1990s. Pedley was in the news years before the media began writing about DOM, and apparently the subject of a book called the "Fountain Pen Conspiracy". Just before Melchizedek hit the news, around 1990, the Sacramento, California U.S. Marshall was quoted by the Sacramento Bee as saying that the Pedley case was politically motivated. This to me is pretty interesting stuff. Are you saying that Pedley's translation of the Melchizedek Bible was Pedley's criminal association to DOM, because that is the only association I can find to DOM other than his son following in his footsteps?Johnski 05:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Merging requires the edit history of the source of the merged info to be kept. Therefore, merge and delete is not a valid vote. See Guide to deletion. - 131.211.51.34 09:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow another bs move by Johnski and unsigned at that. This is from the person who tried to convience me that blogs could be used as a creditable source. Speaking of creditablity, you are shooting yourself in the foot in terms of your creditablity by the statements you make. You purposly lie and misrepresent the rules of Wikipedia to push DOM. In fact, here is the true interpretation of the rule you misquoted:

"An AFD decision is either to "keep" or "delete" the article. AFD discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to "keep". The AFD decision may also include a strong recommendation for an additional action such as a "merger" or "redirect". In many cases, the decision to "keep" or "delete" may be conditional on the community's acceptance of the additional action. These recommendations do represent the community consensus and also should not be overturned lightly. However, these are actions which can be taken by any editor and do not require "admin powers". If they are challenged, the decision should be discussed and decided on the respective article Talk pages. A second AFD discussion is unnecessary."
 * You continue to make statements in bad faith and revert things without consensus, why should anyone trust you? Davidpdx 10:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Davidpdx, I'm not asking anyone to trust me, only to write balanced, fair and factual articles. I don't believe that I said that a blog is a credible source only that one can be used in certain circumstances, and I finally admitted that you were correct in regard to the way I used it, which was only in a single case. Look at 131.211.51.34 activity and think about whether that is really me.Johnski 19:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete: Anyone who cares should move NPOV content to DOM now. (SEWilco 14:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC))
 * Delete and give a slightly larger mention to the subject on the DOM page. Not notable outside of DOM-related activity. flowersofnight 15:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No notability outside DOM. -- howcheng  [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 16:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect, with maybe a bit of a smerge. -R. fiend 16:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable person. In the grand scheme of things, Pedley has no notability.  Per (SEWilco anyone who is really passionate about this could move content to DOM site, though anything pulled from this article needs serious NPOV edits.--Isotope23 21:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but rewrite. A glance at Dominion of Melchizedek proves that Pedley is notable. However, as this article currently reads, he appears to be Yet Another Forgettable Translator of the Bible (tm); only when you get several tedious paragraphs into the quoted text does one find that he is involved in several felony financial crimes. Unless it can be shown that this is a hoax, I think a career felon is notable. -- llywrch 23:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll tell you what, I'll do a rewrite when I get a chance today. The more I look at this, I'm on the fence a bit on notability because while Dominion of Melchizedek has slight notability, I'm not so sure that this notability is necessarily confered on the creator.  Still, I will rewrite it NPOV (which is sorely lacking right now) and condense it because I don't believe there is much value in hearing about his marriages, etc.  The arrests and convictions are all verifiable, though Pedley claims they were cooked up.  Even if this article gets deleted, at the end of the day it's still good practice for NPOVing an article.--Isotope23 11:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but rewrite.207.47.122.10 08:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I protest the vote from 207.47.122.10. This is clearly the IP address of Johnski, the main person involved in vandalizing numerous pages on Wikipedia. He is adding several pages in order to push DOM and make it seem legitimate. Each person has one vote on a rfd. It's time Johnski learns to follow the rules. Davidpdx 13:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep rewrite and watch page. I've nominated a page for incurable PoV myself, but Isotope23 seems to have done a fair fix, if it can be maintained. Septentrionalis 16:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into DOM article. Pavel Vozenilek 17:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge content into Dominion of Melchizedek and delete. Shocktm (Talk * Contributions) 20:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge Lets keep this stuff in one place. Dejvid 18:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Rewrite looks good but needs more work. Dejvid, Did you agree with Melchizedek's spiritual war on Serbia, which was launched just before hell fire came from America?SamuelSpade 21:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: As SamuelSpade is a sockpuppet of Johnski, this vote may be disregarded. KAJ is also a sockpuppet of Johnski.--Gene_poole 23:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Mr. Poole, please stop claiming that I am a sockpuppter. KAJ 20:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep: Pedley is notable and may be involved in things other than the Dominion of Melchizedek Tom harrison 23:57, 22 October 2005 (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.