Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Seaborg


 * 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 Keep. --Deathphoenix 01:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

David Seaborg
Seaborg isn't notable in the slightest. Not sure why this article was ever created. There are tens of thousands of biologists and activists and nothing makes this one stand out or worthy of an entry in Wikipedia. --Jason Gastrich 05:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. Per nom. --Jason Gastrich 05:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, the son of a famous person. Ruby 05:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete No case made other than being the son of. Crunch 05:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Unless article is expanded to demonstrate notability. Nothing on Google Scholar and one isn't notable by association.    Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  05:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete --Terence Ong 05:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Yet another WP:POINT violation from Gastrich. Guettarda 05:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Guettarda has been anti-Gastrich since he first heard my name and religion. Now, I see he cares little about the validity of the entry and thinks veto when he sees my name. I apologize to Wikipedia on his behalf. --Jason Gastrich 05:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Gastrich appears to be systematically nominating bios of evolutiionary biologists, atheists and LBTG subjects in relatiation for AFD nominations of several of "his" bios. These are by their very nature bad faith and POINT violations.  Guettarda 05:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Understood, but now Jason is nominating people who really are not notable, and we can accord him the dignity owed to any other person who devotes their time to Wikipedia. Ruby 06:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually my main reason for voting keep here is that I trust that the original author of this article is unlikely to write an article about a non-notable person. I'm more than willing to give hm the benefit of the doubt, especially when the nom in part of Gastrich's POINT violation (which has now degerated into personal attacks against me).  Guettarda 17:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Disregarding from the schism between two wikipedians and voting on the subject matter instead. David Seaborg is most notable for founding World Rainforest Fund, an organisation which is even less notable than he is--Ezeu 05:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC).
 * Delete Doesn't seem to be much except someone's kid. I found an article mentioning a David Seaborg at Google News, but I think it was a different guy. (All it said was that David Seaborg was a "man on the street" who uses the Nordic Track to lose weight, nothing notable there even if it is this David Seaborg)--T. Anthony 07:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The San Francisco Chronicle seesm to turn to him for such quotes every few months. See "TWO CENTS; How do you keep fit at home?" (December 31, 2005), "TWO CENTS; The luckiest person you know?" (OCTOBER 28, 2005), "TWO CENTS; A case of perfect timing?" (MAY 20, 2005), "TWO CENTS; A sight you'll never forget?" (JANUARY 14, 2005), "TWO CENTS; What's the sweetest thing your mama ever did for you?" (MAY 7, 2004), "TWO CENTS; How did you meet your sweetie?" (FEBRUARY 13, 2004), etc. For what it's worth, Seaborg's mom helped him get a snake out of a radio, and he met his sweetie on a train. -- Dragonfiend 18:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay then it is the same guy. So he's a human interest figure in San Francisco then. Human interest figures in LA have been deleted and that's a bigger town. Most of the other stuff cited on him is just that he's in a list of protesters. As his name his famous they might have just noted he was in the group due to that. At best he's of local northern California interest. If he gets elected to something in San Francisco maybe he'll merit an article.--T. Anthony 00:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Added to that there is so little here you can copy it and add it to the article on his father. I considered adding to the Telly Savalas article the information that his son Nick voiced "Stavros" in the Batman: The Animated Series episode "Fire from Olympus", but I'm not sure Nick Savalas warrants an article of his own.--T. Anthony 00:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete 402 google hits. Need I say more? --Pierremenard 10:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with the father. Note violation of WP:POINT and see also per Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] AfD? 13:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm open to merger.--T. Anthony 14:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete article fails to demonstrate this person's significance/notability. Sliggy 15:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge/redirect to his father per above --kingboyk 17:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep notable. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 17:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Is notable enough, though barely.--ragesoss 17:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to be stepping out of his father's shadow and gaining notability as a peace activist. For example, four California newspapers (The Alameda Times-Star, The Daily Review, The Oakland Tribune, and Tri-Valley Herald) carried a story that "More than 1,200 people protesting President George W. Bush's nuclear weapons policy held a rally and peaceful demonstration at William Paine Park and the Lawrence Livermore Lab Sunday afternoon. The rally -- emceed by Miguel Molina of KPFA radio of Berkeley -- featured dozens of guest speakers, including David Seaborg, Marylia Kelley of Tri-Valley Cares and William Underbaggage, a Native American peace activist." -- Dragonfiend 18:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, bad faith nom, WP:POINT. After a dozen or more of these it is time to block nominator for disruption of Wikipedia. MCB 22:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as blatant violation of WP:POINT. Also, the nominator of this article has a currently ongoing RFC and his motives are clearly suspect.  Cyde Weys  23:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Jason decided to make this us vs. them, and I choose them. --StuffOfInterest 01:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Son of famous scholar and famous scientist in his own right. Nominator is a fundamentalist Christian and has nominated a string of atheists out of vengence. Arbustoo 01:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Has actual accomplishments. --Calton | Talk 02:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:POINT. Harvestdancer 02:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - per above. Do not just vote auto-keep because of WP:POINT.  So the nomination may have been made in bad faith, I do not endorse his actions or beliefs, but I really don't think this guy is notable enough. - Hahnchen 03:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand with more information. Calwatch 05:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment can someone please include in the article itself the information that is causing all these keep votes? Thanks. Sliggy 12:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. All votes referencing the nominator rather than the merits of the article should be discounted.  Logophile 14:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The alternative is to close this AfD and renominate it so we can vote on the merits of the wiki article, not the nominator. Some of us don't care for the ongoing schisms vis-à-vis the nominator. A bad article cannot be kept merely because the nominator has (or is perceived to have) a problem. --Ezeu 14:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, this is actually a delete. The nomination may or may not have been bad faith, and I don't actually care, but there's no evidence of WP:BIO being hit here. Stifle 16:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. If I (the article's author, from some time back) were to try and defend this as notable (and I am not necessarily doing that), I would say something like: "A child of a notable person is obviously not, for that reason, notable. However, it could plausibly be argued that if the otherwise possibly unnotable child has done something relating to the notability of the parent which is in some way quite interesting, it could make it notable. In this instance, it is somewhat interesting that the son of the discoverer of plutonium, and head of the AEC, became an anti-nuclear activist." But that would probably be a stretch. Anyway, it is just a little stub, Wikipedia will be no better or worse off no matter what happens to it, in my opinion; I have really no investment either way, and I am not writing this in any sort of remorseful tone. In all reality I'm not sure why I wrote the article in the first place -- I must have been making some edit's to his father's article and thought, "Oh, I'll throw the son in too." Not much of a reason, in retrospect! --Fastfission 02:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think he can merit a mention in an article about his dad. This seems acceptable and has precedent.--T. Anthony 11:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Let's keep to a single set of standards for believers and unbelievers alike. Uncle Davey 10:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is user's 4th edit. --Pierremenard 23:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So what? Weren't you new once? Did people give you a hard time so now you have to like pass it on? Uncle Davey 09:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Votes from new users are generally discounted, especially if they're invited from outside as you were. Please see WP:SOCK under 'meatpuppetry'. --Malthusian (talk) 09:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I rather doubt that he was active in AfD when he first started. For someone to be active this soon in AfD they are either a regular using a pseudonym or a friend who has be recruited for the specific purpose of voting. I can vouch you are not a pseudonym of Jason Gastrich, so were you asked to come? Or did you just happen to stumble on the AfD page in your first few edits? David D. (Talk) 09:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I never made any secret that I was asked, because I really cannot see what the problem is with that. Any other site would be happy to make new recruits. If you compare and contrast this to something like Reggie Finley's site, I have to say that there I was never treated as less than equal because I was new. The fact that that has happened here I find disgusting. I don't treat people like that who turn up on my groups and sites. And another thing, David, as you, being a co-moderator of that group are very well aware, the Google2 Beta group called maleboge.org also has been recruiting people into Wikipedia to beef up your side. So if you think that this "meatpuppetry" - a phrase I never heard anywhere but on this particular site - is so wrong in your view (remember, it isn't in my opinion) then aren't you the more to be blamed for being implicated in it than I am? You are in my experience one of the more fair-minded people on your side, so I hope you'll take due account of that point. Uncle Davey 10:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do you insist on polarising this as sides. I don't know what you mean about recruiting. Possibly there was commentary but since all involved had been active in wikipedia for a while (except WarriorScribe) i don't see whom was recruited to where. You'll have to be more specific. In some cases i was recruited to articles by Jason Gastrich himself.  You can see that on my talk page. Ironic isn't it. More often than not newbies are helped a lot by the community.  Your appearance in less than neutral territory, with a metaphorical gun, no less, meant you lost your honeymoon period. I am certain that if you leave Gastrichs shadow you will get the welcome you deserve. David D. (Talk) 10:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Uncle Davey:I have to say that there I was never treated as less than equal because I was new. The fact that that has happened here I find disgusting. I'm sorry to hear that you are disgusted. However, wikipedia has policies, and one of these is that votes of new users are usually discounted in controversial or close votes for deletion. Hopefully, you can understand why the policy is here: if it wasn't: (a) votes for deletion would be vulnerable to sockpuppets (b) votes for deletion would turn into campaigning contests, testing which side can garner more personal friends to go and vote. Anyway, I'm afraid the policy is not up for vote or for a debate here. If you are interested in debating the policy, please go to Wikipedia_talk:Guide_to_deletion --Pierremenard 14:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment:Please note that this user (User:Usenetpostsdotcom) is a suspected sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich, the same user who started this AFD. Mr. Gastrich was the one who created "Uncle Davey"'s User Page, and that page consists of the same text as that of another of Mr. Gastrich's suspected sockpuppets (User:Wiggins2). -Colin Kimbrell 14:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Mr Kimbrell, this is demonstrably not the case. Please withdraw your comment. If you actually go to the website whose name is not so subtly encoded in my nym, you will see that I don't look at all like him, and you will also find ways to e-mail me. If you or any nominee of yours wishes to e-mail me with their telephone number, then I will ring them up and you can decide for yourselves whether I can even talk like a Californian, or whether I am the limey living in Poland that I claim to be. If you are so poor at checking your assertions as you have been in my case, then may I ask what business you have editing an encyclopedia? Uncle Davey 18:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, bad faith nomination, WP:POINT. --Malthusian (talk) 09:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * merge with Glenn T. Seaborg or delete, it is the only page that links here. David D. (Talk) 09:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, bad faith nomination.  TestPilot [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|48px]] 05:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge. What do you expect, I am an inclusionist! --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:00, 11 February 2006 (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.