Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik Shaw


 * 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   delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Erik Shaw

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO  ttonyb (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)  Keep I really don't see the issue. I have seen the "GI JOBS" magazine and it was a good feature for somebody who doesn't want any recognition anyways. I have seen other subjects on this site that have alot less info and are still around. This is a great site for information and Erik deserves a place and I think there is more than enough info to back him up. Wiki has fail safe measures in place and rightfully so but this is a case that I feel should be allowed to stay. The credibility of this site is always in question due to the user input but this is a clear example of a person doing great things and has enough documented right now to at least get a wikipedia page. If it's an issue then end the discussion and delete him but if there is any doubt that he does have a place here then we have to keep him around and see where this goes in the future. Flyinrian (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC) — Flyinrian (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Keep Comment How many sources does Wikipedia need? This is a worldwide forum that makes it impossible to get the clear varification out to everybody around the globe. This is even harder for a case like this when we are dealing with a person who is in the gray area. I feel there is a good list of sources to fall back on. I mentioned before if there is any doubt he has a place then he should stay but if the powers that be are just looking for a reason to delete based on popularity then delete him and lets move on. I don't think Erik will never be a household name outside of the US Veteran community but in that community he is doing great things. Flyinrian (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC) — Flyinrian (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Comment  I have been using this site for awhile with no account and had no idea how to comment without creating an account so I do apologize and will refrain from anymore comments. I don't know Mr Shaw from a hole in the wall but I just wanted to voice what I thought was right. I have seen the magazines and read his story and thought I could put in some input. I want to apologize to Mr Shaw too and whoever is the author of his page for getting a little too involved. Flyinrian (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable per WP:MILMOS/N. Anotherclown (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete – as it stands at present he is not notable, maybe later but not now. Though noble his interests, noble is not notable and the lack of references prove this. --BSTemple (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete – No credible assertion of notability at this time. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: per above, does not demonstrate notability. Fails WP:MILPEOPLE and WP:BAHAD.  bahamut0013  words deeds 20:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 *  Keep  : I have met and dealt with this person he is exactly what the article states and does exactly what the article states. This is a tough category for somebody to gain enough attention to become a worldwide name in fact it's impossible and if geting all the vets he has helped on board to save his page is what we need to do then that's what needs to be done! --pangleer (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC) — pangleer (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 *  Keep : I am the writer and I feel and have the support of my entire staff to endorse Mr Shaw. We knew it was a long shot but Mr Shaw deserves a place on here for all he has done to raise awareness. He has the interviews and the media attention to justify a page and there will be more on the way. Thank you to EVERYBODY who has become involved in this. We are just happy Mr Shaw has made it this far. None of you will regret allowing his page to stand. (Govguy (talk) 05:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC))
 *  Keep  I found this page on accident and I read it and created an account so I could weigh in. I am a veteran and would like to follow Erik and see where he goes and how many more he will help. I would also like to follow him as his book progresses. He doesn't have a website that i could find so this is the best way for me and the rest of the public to do this. Thank you. --Chamberuno(talk) 23:18 23 November 2010 (UTC) — Chamberuno (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * To pangleer, Govguy and Chamberuno. No one is questioning the importance of advocates such as Erik Shaw to the veteran community, however please understand that this is an encyclopedia and that like all such things we must have notability guidelines which govern what articles are included and which ones are not. An AfD is not a popularity contest and it is not a simply a matter of getting enough votes to either 'keep' or 'delete' an article. Arguments need to cite appropriate wikipedia policy. As such if you would like to contribute to the discussion please explain how keeping this article is inline with that policy. If you are interested please have a look at: Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 08:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No or little sources to verify. No vice 7  Talk  15:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – The number of spa created accounts commenting makes me suspicious that we may need to evoke a sockpuppet investigation. If I am wrong, please accept my apologies, but I believe WP:DUCK applies here.      ttonyb  (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

 Comment Thank you to everybody who jumped in on this. I ask that nobody else comments on the side of "Keep". I want to let the experts handle this unique situation and I just ask they are fair and realize the importance both now and in the future Mr Shaw plays to Veterans of the United States. I don't expect anybody from a foreign country to understand and if this is a personal issue then Thank you for the opportunity and feel free to do what’s best for Wikipedia. We are just grateful we had this opportunity. My last and final comment in regards to this is there is a lot of garbage allowed on this site and I don't think leaving Mr Shaw on the site is going to damage or hurt the site in anyway and will actually open the door to future advocates and politicians that will be coming in the future years from the Veteran community of the US which benefits Wiki.. We have no more "evidence" to add and everything we have other than pictures is on the page. Wiki is not supposed to be a popularity contest it's supposed to be about education and Mr Shaw meets and exceeds those standards but it's just not in the traditional forum and not a mainstream avenue and we realized this coming into this process. Thank you again, God Bless everybody who helped and Take Care. Govguy (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: part of the reason why this article is being considered for deletion is the lack of sources. To an extent if the article were tightened up to remove extraneous detail and information that is not sourced, it might survive (no certainty, of course), however in its current state it looks like a large, unsourced article on a living person, containing original research. Due to legal concerns, biographies of living people are subject to particular scrutiny. As such, I'd like to suggest that those that feel the article should be kept read WP:BLP, WP:CITE and WP:LAYOUT. These might help to clarify the issues with the article and might help if someone decides to try to rewrite the article so that it meets the guidelines. Finally, in regards to spreading the message of the subject's work, is there not some website out there that offers free hosting? If not, surely there is a company out there that would be willing to donate server space to what is (in my opinion as a former serviceman) a worthy cause if they were approached in the appropriate manner? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think references are going to help. He just seems to be non-notable entirely, and unless he's been seriously underrepresented thus far, sources aren't going to fix that. It doesn't help that the tone of the article is closer to a resume than a biography. That is fixable, but ultimately, nothing thus far demonstrates passing the GNG.  bahamut0013  words deeds 19:07, 26 November 2010 (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.