Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Dimond


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Michael Dimond

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Long article about a religious leader considered heretical by the Roman Catholic Church, but whose notability is sketchy at best. Google returns mostly blogs that are critical of him, but few if any reliable sources. Delete.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 13:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see a blog. This is a notable apologist Robert Sungenis writing against him: http://www.catholicintl.com/catholicissues/dimondradio.htm    Why would he write against him if he was not notable. Ourshelp (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Also nominating, a redirect to the above. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 13:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep (and edit) books.google has a bunch of hits on this colorful person (about 5 about him, 3 his works).   Heretic? Definitely according to the RC church. Notable? Yes.   Puff needs removal? Sure. Still a Keep. Collect (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep He is notable. The article would be more useful if it were written so that non-Catholics could understand what was being discussed. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How is he notable? Any evidence? Drmies (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that he is talked about in several sources as if people care about him and what he believes and what he is doing.Steve Dufour (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or re-source. Far too many references from a single source. Where is the notability outside of this source? Timneu22 (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable per books cited by Collect by and about him, per the Alexa review cited in the article and the strong reactions of Catholic apologists.  I have removed a large blockquote of copyvio material; the rest looks okay, though I haven't checked it.  Baileypalblue (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - A quick look around JSTOR and Lexis doesn't bring up much and from what I can see from Google books all of his works are self-published. If we allowed minor, self-published authors to all have articles we'd be overrun by people from [www.Lulu.com Lulu]. Can't seem to find much reaction to him from the official Catholic Church either, suggesting they don't view him as a very big threat. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Panyd. THF (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * keep His website comes up first ranking in the list of Catholic websites not in communion with Rome on Alexa. http://www.alexa.com/browse?CategoryID=28757 Ourshelp (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And a ranking of 172,346 overall. But since the article is not about a website, such statistics are not really relevant and may in fact denote a high volume of traffic from within the organization. Alexa rankings can betray a lack of notability, but they cannot confirm notability. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 01:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He receives a lot of unique visitors as well. "Below are the web stats for just over one month (34 days). We received almost six million hits and over 200,000 unique visitors." http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/E-Exchanges_Archive.html Ourshelp (talk) 05:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I so wanted this man to be notable - but I can't find any WP:RS for him.  Springnuts (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete--Springnuts, you're nuts! but you're right. There are no reliable sources to be found--a character like this ought to generate hits in Google News, and he doesn't; the results for a regular search produces articles like this and this, but neither is really independent or in what we usually call a reliable source. Google Books has nothing but a mention or two in that "Compendium" book published by Lulu, and a few title by Lucien Gregoire, another nutcase (pardon my French)--the page with notes that cites Dimond is bad enough to link here. Anyone who's ever read a good, academic study will see in one second that if the notes look like this, then the book is not carefully and diligently written. Nope, no notability. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Articles on this non-notable head of a non-notable, schismatic monastery have been speedied several times, not sure why this time around should be any different.  KleenupKrew (talk) 04:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that being a schismatic should be a reason to delete his article. This is not Wikicatholicopedia. Steve Dufour (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, being schismatic is often a point in favor of non-notability, especially if the schismatic group is so miniscule it is hardly worth mentioning. The Catholic Church has 1.131 billion members; the Most Holy Family Monastery apparently has had between 3 and 10 members in the past and perhaps just one now if I read the article correctly.  KleenupKrew (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the fact that a lot of people who don't know him personally seem to dislike him is an indication of notability. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * True, up to a certain point. However, if the only third-party sources available are libelous, as is the case here, then you must conclude that the authors did know either him or one of his disciples. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 01:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I know lots of people but I wouldn't post information about them on a website unless I thought that it would be important for other people to know about them. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep one -- Not being a Catholic, and certainly not familiar with its traditionalist dissentions, I find it difficult to comment on this, but will try. I suspect that this may be a significant subject.  However, I think it would be more appropriate for the material to appear in the article on the monastery, rather than that on its leader.  The main problem is that most of the sources are internal ones.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a new page for Most Holy Family Monastery I have made: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ourshelp#Most_Holy_Family_Monastery
 * I will move the "Michael Dimond" page to Most Holy Family Monastery. Ourshelp (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to delete the Michael Dimond page, now that a suitable Most Holy Family Monastery has been created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ourshelp (talk • contribs) 00:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just leave it as a plausible redirect. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:37, 24 January 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.