Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Obenst


 * 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan Obenst

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unsourced, unverifiable, maybe even hoax, from single-edit account: no Google or NewsBank hits. Gordonofcartoon 17:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * strong delete It is not specified what this perosn did to qualify as a 'hero'. Google search comes up blank and he has not been in the local (to Upton) press. I am surprised it failed speedy.•  nancy  •  talk to me  • 18:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete If it were true that he somehow saved lives in the flood, the article might qualify for merging or redirection (or perhaps even keeping).  However, with zero google hits it does appear to be a hoax.-- Kubigula (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete - I tagged this article with db-bio because it has absolutely no assertion of notability, even if the claims are true, and even if the article is rewritten to be encyclopedic. ~ JohnnyMrNinja  02:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it would be quite sad if heroic life saving deeds were not notable (i.e. worthy of note). Fortunately, if genuine, such actions lead almost invariably to media coverage (e.g. Wesley Autrey), and the complete absence of coverage in this case almost certainly suggests it's a hoax.-- Kubigula (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not making a moral judgment here, and neither does Wikipedia. How many ER surgeons save lives everyday? Or policemen, firemen, EMTs, etc. I think it is a great thing (if this person exists), but Wikipedia notability standards clearly state "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Again, this article makes no assertions of the subject's notability. The sad fact is that coverage is far more existent on those who take lives as opposed to those who save them. ~ JohnnyMrNinja  03:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah - I should avoid sentimentality :). Still, there is a much lower threshold for an assertion of  notability for purposes of avoiding speedy deletion than there is for a demonstration of notability in order to survive AfD.  Someone engaged in the saving of lives as part of their job would usually not be newsworthy or notable.  In contrast, someone who could be termed a hero who saved lives during a national emergency would almost certainly generate some coverage in reliable sources and potentially be notable.  As it stands, this one appears to be some kind of personal story, or, more likely, a hoax.-- Kubigula (talk) 03:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point... but MAN we are over-analyzing this lame article. This discussion is probably the most notability this guy will ever get. ~ JohnnyMrNinja  03:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep. We can debate the ethics and value of lifesaving when he's shown to exist. Gordonofcartoon 03:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - good on him for helping out, but without verification we can't really have an article, can we? Tony Fox (arf!) 04:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, no evidence that he exists. Though it would be a shame to delete it if he is real... but maybe that's what they want us to think. McLarenJAB 14:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Tony Fox. Bearian 20:32, 31 July 2007 (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.