Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Luers


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Jeff Luers

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Does not meet our notability standards. BLP1E applies here. Moral Authority (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep wonder if the nominater nominate based on actuall notability or the act that it is about a prisoner? Keep.--Judo112 (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * wonder if the reply addressed concerns based on BLP1E. prisoner or not, act or not, prisoner or not, BLP1E still applies. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per "cause celebre", sentence overturn on appeal. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Seems to have gotten coverage over a long period. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete terrorist "cause celebre" is not a reason to keep, BLP1E for individual engaged in criminal acts of arson. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It appeard BLP1E may not be appropriate here. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Nomination proposes an incorrect application of policy. The policy WP:BLP1E is not a justification for deletion. The policy concerns whether the article title and topic should be the person, or the event. This nomination should be closed, and a discussion on Talk:Jeff Luers could determine whether or not the person or the event is the appropriate topic. -Pete (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The nominator was a suspected sockpuppet and has since he was accused retired suddenly. Take this into account. This article is keeper.--Judo112 (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As there is another delete vote, I can't speedy keep this one. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes you can. By the fact that a overall consensus of Keep. has been reached in a matter of a few hours. with strong statemtents for Keep. Its unlikely to lead anywhere else but to keep--Judo112 (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The account saying Speedy keep also has right in the statement: Nomination proposes an incorrect application of policy. That along with an possible sockpuppet consensus on the nominator should lead to keep.--Judo112 (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It may be incorrect, but it's not unquestionably disruption. See Speedy keep for details. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per coverage in multiple reliable third-party sources. Also, BLP1E doesn't apply as he was convicted of multiple instances. &lt;&gt;Multi-Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:BLP1E should not be used as reason for deletion. The policy only concerns the name of an article. Nolamgm (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - BLP1E, along with OR, must be the most mis-understood "rule" we have. No where in BLP1E does it say anything about deleting an article. My god, John Wilkes Booth is really only notable for killing Lincoln, and Queen Elizabeth II is really only notable for being the Queen of England (or whatever her full title is). It comes down to coverage in secondary sources which demonstrates people have taken notice (that word is rather similar to notable don't yah think?). We don't care why people have taken notice, or why the person was noticed, we only care if they have been noticed. If the New York Times wants to do a series of articles about a single manhole cover outside of their offices, well you know what, then that manhole cover is notable. Who cares why. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Forgot, here we have the multiple sources as shown by the Google News link and what's in the article, so that's why I said keep. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hope someone soon close this discussion. its an obvious keep.--Judo112 (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep, time to retire this discussion in honor of its "retired" creator. MuffledThud (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not eligible for WP:Speedy keep unless Duffbeerforme withdraws his delete vote. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep See the part about international attention getting his jail time cut in half? A famed eco-terrorists that all these other lunatics look up to.  And plenty of significant coverage.   D r e a m Focus  00:01, 30 September 2009 (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.