Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Corrigan


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Ian Corrigan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, and WP:GNG. Has been tagged for sources for over five years with no improvement whatsoever. This article about a cofounder of the Starwood Festival was written by another cofounder of the Starwood Festival. It is part of this enormous atrocity of spam that has existed on Wikipedia for over five years. The AfD on the other cofounder is here. The arbcommed user who created these two articles has dedicated himself since 2006 to writing and defending articles about his Starwood Festival and all of its participants. He's violated WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:BIO, and also WP:CANVASS--so the closing admin should pay particular attention to any meat puppets showing up here. Qworty (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 12.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  22:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Unable to find sufficient reliable sources that establish notability. The subject might be notable in a specialized wiki or encyclopedia about Druidism or alternative religions, but for Wikipedia there needs to be multiple reliable independent sources that discuss the subject in-depth per WP:GNG. The current sources are either trivial mentions, primary sources or unreliable sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources do not establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources do not establish notability. Mountain Herb (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Qworty has been advised about his somewhat aggressive tone - there is no evidence of any meatpuppetry anywhere. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've added some information to his bibliography that I think indicates notability. The discography needs more information, which I don't think will be hard to find. Folklore1 (talk) 03:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * His bibliography and discography are lists of primary sources, not the secondary sources that are required for notability, as simply described in WP:42. Qworty (talk) 06:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. See my comment about the nomination for deletion of Brushwood Folklore Center. This is one of several nominations for deletion that I would prefer to see dismissed immediately. Folklore1 (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not an argument for keeping this particular article. Qworty (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Even within the field, the accomplishments as described,do not seem notable. His books are totally non-note, essentially zero library holdings, I don't expect hundreds ofr this subject, but that's too low to indicate any significance whatsoever.  DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Vittala (talk) 13:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not an argument for inclusion. Qworty (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is enough sources and material already here. 75.160.179.145 (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Care to be specific? Qworty (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The Bonewits source gives somewhat nontrivial coverage (about a paragraph on the subject, our of a whole book) but is very obscure (worldcat says it's only in a handful of libraries). I can't tell whether any of the other sources are even at that level of quality because they're offline. So the case for WP:GNG is not convincing to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2012 (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.