Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth O'Keefe (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. Even if we factor out a lot of the noise, there is still no clear consensus one way or the other. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Kenneth O'Keefe
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article is a BLP disaster. The vast majority of the sources are utterly worthless. Often, they are O'Keefe himself. Some that look like a good source (NY Times) don't mention him at all. Or, they may have passing mention of him. Or, they're original legal documents. I don't see any reliable source providing serious biographical material. There's so many junk sources, it's possible there's a gem in the mix here. But, I haven't seen it. Being one of a bunch of protesters in a number of notable protests, doesn't make one notable, in my view. There needs to be substantial coverage on him specifically. A number of biographical claims, such as his nationality, need particularly good sourcing, but lack it. Interviews of a person, even when done by major media, where he states facts about himself, serve as proof he said something, but don't proof the truth of what he says. I didn't read fully all 59 junk sources, and I don't think I should have to. If somebody wishes to keep it, they need to fix it. I considered stubifying to the basics, but I couldn't get a decent source to say one thing that makes this person notable. While this was previously nominated, I think Wikipedia has significantly raised the requirements for a biography of a living person, particularly in terms of requiring reliable sources, which are still lacking several years later. --Rob (talk) 10:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Your argument is apparently based on V, and there is ample, painfully obvious V. NTW, Guardian, Telegraph, BBC. A BLP doesn't have to be comprehensive, that's just a good idea. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 *  Keep Neutral: see below for change in !vote. I agree that the article is in pretty bad shape source-wise and somewhat peacocky, but the guy has received coverage from several serious media outlets over several years, so it seems to me he passes the WP:N test. If I have a few moments I'll try to pear down the obvious non-RS stuff like his sites and youtube. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Which serious media outlet has provided serious coverage of O'Keefe, giving substantial biographical material? Please give me one example, that's not a single sentence, or his own words in an interview, or a story that doesn't even mention him, or a legal document that's a primary source, or a YouTube video of himself.  I think people are being blinded by the mass of citations which give an extremely false impression.  Nobody is going to actually review all 50 or so sources closely, so people just assume that there must be something in there somewhere.  If somebody can find a kernel of good in the article, maybe restarting with a stub, then sure, let's keep it.  I tried and failed at that.  But, please, let's not repeat the same mistake done last time, where people said it was fixable, and years later, it's still total garbage.    --Rob (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have done just a little work on the article so far, but his involvement in the Mavi Marmari and human shields in Iraq has been noted here among other places, he has been on BBC's HardTalk and al-Jazeera, CNN and the Guardian covered his recent troubles with a convoy to Gaza, etc. I'm by no means a fan of the guy, but notable is notable. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notbility has been set by the media. Using autobiographical material for verification of biographical information is not discouraged. Primary sources are also welcome for verifiability. The nominator is confusing notability with verifiability, a common mistake. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * When did primary and autobiographical sources become acceptable as the sole source of contentious significant claims? As an example of the harm of relying on non-independent sources, notice where it says "In 2006 he returned to Hawaii and was elected as a representative of District 6 in Oahu, serving one year in the Hawaiian Legislature. "  In fact, that is completely false.   The only source is a web site of a group that self-proclaimed themselves to be the "resinstated Hawaii Government".  This is a hugely important point in the article.  Now, I would love to clarify the article to say what the facts are.  However, I'm aware of no reliable source that explicitly covers what if any public office's this man has ever held.  Or any sources saying how exactly he was chosen to this "office".  There is grave danger in allowing the subject of an article to be the primary source of information.     --Rob (talk) 03:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right about the Hawaii stuff. Almost none of it is sourced (after I removed the non-RS refs) and might have to go. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a forum to determine notability for inclusion, you are still arguing about verifiability of biographical details. People come to Wikipedia to find out which details are accurate and which are puffery. I just realized that Maury Markowitz is arguing the same thing, I thought "V" was the movie. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The two (notability and verifiability) are inseparable. Something is notable only if the claims of notability are verifiable.  You need to separate out the verifiable from the unverifiable first, and then you can discuss if what's left verifiable, is in fact notable.  Being a member of a the legislative assembly would certainly be a legitimate claim of notability if it was actually verifiable.  Of course, it's not verifiable, since it's an entirely made up lie, that somebody invented, and Wikipedia published for several years, with no factual basis whatsoever.  Apparently, anybody wishing a bio on Wikipedia, can make a web site, claim to be the holder of a public office, and then write about themselves on Wikipedia.    --Rob (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: Notable. No brainer. Christiaan (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Withdraw Ok it's pretty obvious how this is going, so feel free to close up now.  I'm not sure the current procedure for doing so.   As discussed on the talk page, I'm hoping there'll soon be a reboot of this article.  Hopefully, this won't be a pile trash in another five years. --Rob (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

As part of the consideration process, I would recommend the reading of the following investigative journalism piece on Mr. O'Keefe's recent convoy trip:  http://palestinethinktank.com/2010/12/06/truth-justice-and-peace-nearly-sunk-as-rth-convoy-facts-emerge-and-as-usual-gazans-get-the-worst-part-of-the-deal/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhaedrusM (talk • contribs) 16:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)  — PhaedrusM (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * That's not a WP:RS. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/No_More_Mr_Nice_Guy


 * Delete - it looks like the consensus here is clear, but personally I'm not convinced Mr. O'Keefe passes our notability guidelines. The human shield action to Iraq is notable, as is the MV Mavi Marmara; but I don't think Kenneth O'Keefe is. Most of the sources aren't really about him, they're about those events; there are very few reliable sources focusing on him as a person. It's a shame we don't have a policy WP:BLP2E ('person notable only for two events'), as that's basically the case here. Robofish (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * After re-reading WP:Notability (people), you may have a point. There are interviews with him in a few reliable sources, but most of the stuff mentions him but isn't about him. I'll change my !vote to neutral pending more opinions. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clearly within the spirit of WP:BLP1E, though got his 15 minutes of fame twice.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 05:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It is apparent that this article contains more than enough  PSTS all of which evidently contain RS,   thus, this article does meet the requirements stated in the WPGNG.  There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest this article falls into the category of a SELFPUB as some who oppose it have stated. As a reader, reading both the article and the arguing comments against it, I must assume that those who oppose it, either, genuinely lack the ability to IRS or are intentionally making it a subject of WPVAND.  'The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true'.  As a reader I have checked the materials appertaining to this article and found that they have been published by reliable sources. --Adam Kallender (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2010 — Adam Kallender (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete - Most of the references are not reliable, one is a self written opinion piece, and the others simply put him in with the larger events. He may cross the threshold of notability in the future, but for now I would merge a line or two into the relevant articles on human shields in Iraq and the MV Mavi Marmara.  Sea photo Talk  08:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/No_More_Mr_Nice_Guy

Page with links to media coverage of Kenneth O'Keefe ---Curtainraiser (talk) 04:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This man has renounced lawfully N V http://www.worldcitizen.uk.net/renounce_document_2.jpg on more than one occasion and leaving behind a prestigious life style and family V. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbGODNIJaQg. U.S. has refused to recognize and the states do not own the people as the people own the States. In all due respect to our U.S. Declaration of Independence that coincides with our U.S. Constitution N RS. A man in the U.S. is free to choose what makes him happy and not what makes government happy N V http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration.html. This man has acquired resources of which must not be unrecognized nor denied V N RS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XZIOo-P1b4  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbGODNIJaQg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLz9VzS1V-Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmjSVrjJa5U   Representative of District 6 in Oahu, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbRXF64YotE. Individuals refusing to recognize these resources and various others are expressing the actions of vandalism RS. Of which must not carry any credibility in denying this mans credentials V. This article has been debated by me who resides in Texas USA and any other participants to this debate for this man have their own independent responses V. All those who accuse others of additional accounts may be doing this action themselves and therefore should be investigated. People who are willing to vandalize a viable account must not be recognized as credible N. A prestigious and honorable site must not be seen as one who will take the word of vandals N as those in this process of vandalism against this account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairlegality (talk • contribs) 03:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC) — Fairlegality (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * 'Comment'  This posting is based on  FACTS and  CS.   After looking at Kenneth O'Keefe's  Article Revision Statistics, a sub-folder created by  WIKIPEDIA'S DATABASE, PR, RS,   it is obvious that   USER: NO MORE MR NICE GUY  and  3 other  WP USERS ( all friends),  intentionally IAR,  and collaborate  with each another  to  commit  VAND  towards ARTICLES,  their sinister motives derive from and are driven by discrimination and racism.  NO MORE MR NICE GUY   has been planning and sabotaging Kenneth O'Keefe's ARTICLE  for the past 5 MONTHS.  What I am now stating is not my personal opinion.  This statement contains:  FACTS, TIMES, DATES, INFORMATIONS, USER ACTIVITIES, ETC., all of which are recorded on WIKIPEDIA'S  DATABASE.  Firstly, I intend  to  explain why   NO MORE MR NICE GUY   and his friends are posting unfounded comments on this:  NOMINATION OF  DELETION PAGE,  comments that do  not  contain any evidence or valid reasons as to why Kenneth O'Keefe's  ARTICLE  should be deleted from  WIKIPEDIA'S SITE.  Kenneth  O'Keefe's  ARTICLE was created in 2003.   The INFORMATION, LOGS and RECORDS  stored on WIKIPEDIA'S DATABASE, [RS, PS],  show that during the course of  approximately 7 years   Ken O'Keefe's  ARTICLE  has been revised, in total, 310 times, the average total of  ANNUAL   EDITS  for each year from 2003 – 2009, is recorded as 10  ANNUAL EDITS;  [WIKIPEDIA DATABASE RS, PS].   The recorded overall total of  EDITS  recorded on WIKIPEDIA'S  DATABASE,   Article Revision statistics, under the heading,   'by the top 10% of active users'  is: 179.  This total  includes:  49 MINOR EDITS  and  53 IP EDITS.  (NB. NO MORE MR NICE GUY'S  EDITS TOTAL 52 – ALL ARE NONE MINOR EDITS, WIKIPEDIA have recorded NO MORE MR NICE GUY as THE TOP  EDITOR 2010 of Kenneth O'Keefe's ARTICLE.  For periods January 2010 - 4th July 2010,  Kenneth O'Keefe's  ARTICLE  remained  UNEDITED,   [WIKIPEDIA DATABASE,  Month Count].  On 4th July 2010,  (5 months ago), NO MORE MR NICE GUY'S first NONE MINOR EDITS  were recorded, this is when NO MORE MR NICE GUY began to actively destroy  Kenneth O'Keefes  ARTICLE.  Kenneth O'Keefe's ARTICLE now has accrued a staggering total of  250 EDITS in a 5 MONTH  PERIOD,  4th July 2010 - December 2010.  From the 4th July 2010 NO MORE MR NICE GUY and his friends have EDITED Kenneth O'Keethe's  Article, removing over 70% of its contents and links. [WIKIPEDIA DATABASE PR, RS].  The first comments  NO MORE MR NICE GUY has left on this page, suggests to a neutral reader that he actually favours  Kenneth O'Keethe's  ARTICLE, (a ploy to give the impression he too is a neutral participant in this denominational process and debate).   Keep: I agree that the article is in pretty bad shape source-wise and somewhat peacocky, but the guy has received coverage from several serious media outlets over several years, so it seems to me he passes the WP:N test. If I have a few moments I'll try to pear down the obvious non-RS stuff like his sites and youtube. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC).   The total EDITS from the 4th of July 2010 until the end of July 2010 are recorded as 92, [WIKIPEDIA DATABASE]. 92 EDITS in a 4 WEEK PERION in comparison to the average ANNUAL EDITS of 10 from 2003 - 4th July 2010,  the date NO MORE MR NICE GUY began EDITING Kenneth O'Keefe's ARTICLE is a staggering amount to say the least.  Clearly it is not only evident, it is also very disturbing to realise that  NO MORE MR NICE GUY  has  EDITED  Kenneth O'Keefe's ARTICLE with obsessive and malicious intent to have it removed from THE WIKIPEDIA SITE. I suggest his comments be removed from this debate, along with the users who have collaborated with him. (These USERS are associated in the same activities of VAND and can be identified in the WIKIPEDIA DATABASE). 18:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC) NB I am adding my signature as it has been deleted.  --Adam Kallender (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I wish to submit the following evidence to support my previous comment, 'that NO MORE MR NICE GUY and friends are guilty of VAND against Kenneth O'Keefe's ARTICLE and of IAR'. RE: Kenneth O'Keefe's EDIT COUNTS. 2003 - 14 EDITS, 2004 - 14 EDITS,  2005 - 7 EDITS,  2006 - 12 EDITS, 2007 - 0 EDITS, 2008 - 0 EDITS, 2009 - 0 EDITS, 2010 - 250 EDITS. THESE STATISTICS ARE FROM WIKIPEDIA'S DATABASE RECORDS, PR, RS.  18:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC) NB I am adding my signature as it has been deleted.  --Adam Kallender (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply Rob (Thivierr), how is anyone to deal with this matter when you are now blatantly commiting acts of VAND on this nominations page? I am making you aware that your actions are considered as VAND and that you cannot continue to IAR. See attached link that doesn't support your last EDIT. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kenneth_O%27Keefe_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=405504726 --Adam Kallender (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply Take it easy. Here is what happened:  When you added your comments, you overwrote the special characters which end a comment.  This meant that none of your post was visible, because it was turned into an invisible "comment".  I "uncommented" your text, so it could be seen.  However, when I did this, the signature tildes that you used previously where expanded, and showed my signature, instead of yours.  So, we're both wrong.  No you didn't sign my comments.  And, no I didn't vandalize.  Please, let's not make this personal.   --Rob (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment My comment WAS visible and I made a copy of it. I think it is clear to all which users are being personal and who are IAR. --Adam Kallender (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply - Just a note: Normally you should say "keep" or "delete" in bold only once.  Saying "keep" in bold four times, gives a misleading impression.  Saying "keep" repeatedly won't actually help keep the article.  It just annoys people.  --Rob (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article11003.shtml http://ramallahonline.com/2010/09/veto-power-is-an-insult-to-the-international-community-kenneth-okeefe/ http://www.counterpunch.org/okeefe06072010.html --Adam Kallender (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment After looking further into Kenneth O'Keefe's ARTICLE, I have found other RS. http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10981.shtml

Kenneth O'Keefe is a warmharted human being who choose the side of the downtrodden and helpless. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_hVtUO2Lpk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0m4z1h4LlQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWiCBw4Rnbc V N It's who he is. To see the slander and attacks on him and his person is just sadening. Understanding why and what is behind these attacks, makes it infuriating.

Starting with the removal of parts of the article; At the same time all verifying links were removed and then claims were made those parts are unverified. Of course they are since they've been removed with the parts. They were verified while still there though and that's the important thing.

There are claims that Ken couldn't have sought and gotten Hawaiian citizenship. It's because aome choose not to understand international law. N. USA is an occupying illegal force on Hawaii. It is the De Facto, but illegal, government of Hawaii. Hawaii also has a legal, De Juris government and it is this LEGAL government that granted Ken citizenship. Of course those claiming lack of proof already knew and understood this but it suits the agenda not to understand.

Regarding his many attemps to get rid of his American citizenship; It is all well documented, http://www.worldcitizen.uk.net/renounce_document_2.jpg http://hawaii-gov.net/citizenship/citizenship-in-law/ N V but then it is claimed he has no real desire to lose his citizenship. Hmm... Funny, that what the US officials claimed too. The claimants must know him much better than he knows himself. This is just another of the pathetic attemps to slander him. He has the right to denounce his American citizenship if he wants to. If the claimants are the least knowledgeable in the laws regulating this they would know it. In violation of American law Ken has been refused to denounce his US citizenship on many occasions and it is well documented, see above. Of course you chose not to regard any of this.

It is so blatantly obvious that "No More Mr Nice Guy" and a few others work together to slander Ken and destroy his article for reasons well known and understood. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEGX7qEyHmc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcVTI09T5D4 They should be banned, not Ken's article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterStorm1 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

— PeterStorm1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 02:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete The sources presented in the article and in the conversation above appear, to me at least, to fail one or both of two criteria: reliability, or demonstrative of non-trivial coverage of the topic at hand. This is a significant distinction. Coverage of actions which Mr. O'Keefe may have been involved with does not necessarily equate to coverage of Mr. O'Keefe himself and, as such, doesn't necessarily confer notability. That said, this is a bit of a close call for me. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  06:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete just because I'm seeing so many SPAs dripping from this thing that something else is afoot.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep You admit you didn't read all 59 junk sources, and then question the notability of Kenneth O'Keefe, while in an act of V. you remove many sources. 03:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)03:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC) — Anna O'Leary (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Please would users refrain from editing or deleting my posts or pretending to be me.  This will not support your argument to delete this article. Please see attached link on VAND. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cleaning_up_vandalism--Adam Kallender (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice to see you've unhitched your caps lock and toned down your rhetoric now that your IP sock got blocked.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. If you add multiple "Keep" !votes, it is entirely proper for someone else to edit them and remove the "Keep". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Reply Thank you for the advice Boing. Kintetssubuffalo, that is not my IP and as well you know it, it is just another ploy of those who are committing VAN against Kenneth O'Keefe's Article and the comments posted on this debate page. Any knowledgable user knows that if it were my IP then it would be blocked and I would not be able to continue in this debate. Therefore, please do not try to dicredit me. This should be a fair debate that is accessible to all users. --Adam Kallender (talk) 13:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know you from Adam, but if it walks like a WP:DUCK...--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone should report these guys at SPI and see what happens. I'd be very surprised if they're not related. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Reply You're correct Kintetsubuffalo you do not know me, therefore it is unfair to make assumptions or to judge me, I aswell as everyone else have a right to be a part of this debate. No More Mr Nice Guy, I agree with you for the first time, this debate does require the intervention of WIKIPEDIA Officials. Lets try to stick to the matter in hand, constantly IAR is not going to support your arguments. --Adam Kallender (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're barking up the wrong tree. First of all I didn't !vote to delete this article. Second, the changes I made to the article to bring it up to wikipedia standards make it more likely the article will be kept. None of what I did falls under IAR, quite the opposite. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Scrapes by BLP1E by being noted for Iraq shield involvement as well as the flotilla raid. The margin is pretty thin, though. Tarc (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep If this is to be an unbiased debate, then any user who keeps VAND my comments are IAR. This post contains FACTS all of which are recorded on WIKIPIDEA'S DATABASE. RS, V, N, PS. This posting is based on FACTS and CS. After looking at Kenneth O'Keefe's Article Revision Statistics, a sub-folder created by WIKIPEDIA'S DATABASE, PR, RS, it is obvious that USER: NO MORE MR NICE GUY and 3 other WP USERS ( all friends), intentionally IAR, and collaborate with each another to commit VAND towards ARTICLES, their sinister motives derive from and are driven by discrimination and racism. NO MORE MR NICE GUY has been planning and sabotaging Kenneth O'Keefe's ARTICLE for the past 5 MONTHS. What I am now stating is not my personal opinion. This statement contains: FACTS, TIMES, DATES, INFORMATIONS, USER ACTIVITIES, ETC., all of which are recorded on WIKIPEDIA'S DATABASE. Firstly, I intend to explain why NO MORE MR NICE GUY and his friends are posting unfounded comments on this: NOMINATION OF DELETION PAGE, comments that do not contain any evidence or valid reasons as to why Kenneth O'Keefe's ARTICLE should be deleted from WIKIPEDIA'S SITE. Kenneth O'Keefe's ARTICLE was created in 2003. The INFORMATION, LOGS and RECORDS stored on WIKIPEDIA'S DATABASE, [RS, PS], show that during the course of approximately 7 years Ken O'Keefe's ARTICLE has been revised, in total, 310 times, the average total of ANNUAL EDITS for each year from 2003 – 2009, is recorded as 10 ANNUAL EDITS; [WIKIPEDIA DATABASE RS, PS]. The recorded overall total of EDITS recorded on WIKIPEDIA'S DATABASE, Article Revision statistics, under the heading, 'by the top 10% of active users' is: 179. This total includes: 49 MINOR EDITS and 53 IP EDITS. (NB. NO MORE MR NICE GUY'S EDITS TOTAL 52 – ALL ARE NONE MINOR EDITS, WIKIPEDIA have recorded NO MORE MR NICE GUY as THE TOP EDITOR 2010 of Kenneth O'Keefe's ARTICLE. For periods January 2010 - 4th July 2010, Kenneth O'Keefe's ARTICLE remained UNEDITED, [WIKIPEDIA DATABASE, Month Count]. On 4th July 2010, (5 months ago), NO MORE MR NICE GUY'S first NONE MINOR EDITS were recorded, this is when NO MORE MR NICE GUY began to actively destroy Kenneth O'Keefes ARTICLE. Kenneth O'Keefe's ARTICLE now has accrued a staggering total of 250 EDITS in a 5 MONTH PERIOD, 4th July 2010 - December 2010. From the 4th July 2010 NO MORE MR NICE GUY and his friends have EDITED Kenneth O'Keethe's Article, removing over 70% of its contents and links. [WIKIPEDIA DATABASE PR, RS]. The first comments NO MORE MR NICE GUY has left on this page, suggests to a neutral reader that he actually favours Kenneth O'Keethe's ARTICLE, (a ploy to give the impression he too is a neutral participant in this denominational process and debate). Keep: I agree that the article is in pretty bad shape source-wise and somewhat peacocky, but the guy has received coverage from several serious media outlets over several years, so it seems to me he passes the WP:N test. If I have a few moments I'll try to pear down the obvious non-RS stuff like his sites and youtube. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC). The total EDITS from the 4th of July 2010 until the end of July 2010 are recorded as 92, [WIKIPEDIA DATABASE]. 92 EDITS in a 4 WEEK PERION in comparison to the average ANNUAL EDITS of 10 from 2003 - 4th July 2010, the date NO MORE MR NICE GUY began EDITING Kenneth O'Keefe's ARTICLE is a staggering amount to say the least. Clearly it is not only evident, it is also very disturbing to realise that NO MORE MR NICE GUY has EDITED Kenneth O'Keefe's ARTICLE with obsessive and malicious intent to have it removed from THE WIKIPEDIA SITE. I suggest his comments be removed from this debate, along with the users who have collaborated with him. (These USERS are associated in the same activities of VAND and can be identified in the WIKIPEDIA DATABASE). I wish to submit the following evidence to support my previous comment, 'that NO MORE MR NICE GUY and friends are guilty of VAND against Kenneth O'Keefe's ARTICLE and of IAR'. RE: Kenneth O'Keefe's EDIT COUNTS. 2003 - 14 EDITS, 2004 - 14 EDITS, 2005 - 7 EDITS, 2006 - 12 EDITS, 2007 - 0 EDITS, 2008 - 0 EDITS, 2009 - 0 EDITS, 2010 - 250 EDITS. THESE STATISTICS ARE FROM WIKIPEDIA'S DATABASE RECORDS. --Adam Kallender (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You can't keep voting Keep, so please stop. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And please stop attacking other editors - this page is for discussing the article ONLY. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply Other users are removing or EDITING my comments, this is why I have to re-add them. I fully appreciate what you have stated, however, if you look through the thread you will gain an understanding of my point. --Adam Kallender (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see anywhere were people have been removing or editing your comments - other than striking your repeated "Keep" !votes, which you must not do. I have been following this, and the thing that mostly strikes me is your attacks on other editors - please take heed of the warning I have left at your Talk page and stop these attacks, or you are likely to end up being blocked. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC) (Actually, I see some of the earlier shouting isn't there any more, so maybe someone has removed some of your comments - but the prohibition on attacking others still stands)
 * Ah, no, I just see a lot has been collapsed because it contained attacks on other editors - it hasn't been deleted -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: I have started a sock investigation related to this page here, please feel free to add to it. Hairhorn (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2011 (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.