Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Travesser (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 delete.  An as  talk? 23:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Michael Travesser
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

There is not enough reliable source coverage independent of Michael Travesser to write a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable facts about Michael Travesser. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 17:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as wp:nn. Bendž|Ť 17:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable. R OGER   TALK 18:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, notability seems to be primarily local. --Dhartung | Talk 18:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, not even formatted properly, non notable. The keepers in the first AfD didn't even try to improve the article and the first AfD has two unsigned keep comments. Darrenhusted 19:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, if it was verifiable I would say keep. Callelinea 20:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable.--Mantanmoreland 23:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The trouble with sourcing mentioned in nom is very valid.  Besides Travesser's website, only sources are mentions on some anti-cult sites.  It's basically impossible to glean some reliably verifiable facts about the basics of this man's life from these kind of sources.  The last AFD is something of a joke; only a few people commented, and they did not argue persuasively from a policy standpoint.  --C S (Talk) 00:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yes, I agree.  When I first saw this site on Wiki about me (Michael Travesser) it was entirely made up of false reports by your so-called "source material."  I removed the false information and replaced it with the actual facts.  I also removed the false source material that seemed very fine to you before.  Now you say there is no source material because there are now no false reports written.  BBC is doing a movie about our land, but then you would say that is not source material either since it would mostly show us reporting on ourselves.  I vote to delete.  There is already too much information about us on the Web from all kinds of sources, and most of it is erroneous.  If wikipedia bases most of its information on its pages based on these kinds of "sources" I would dare to say the encyclopedia is pointless.


 * Secondly, the man who did the original protest against this article not having sources is a Seventh-day Adventist. Adventists have a vested interest in getting me out of the spotlight because I was once an Adventist minister and left the Adventist church in protest.  There have been other efforts by the Adventists to eliminate me from the public, even using a false charge of child molestation.  Mormons would like to eliminate any bad publicity for themselves and Adventists are no different.  I only have bad publicity so it makes no difference to me. :-)  1:42 July 10, 2007 CST Michael Travesser — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.165.135.218 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete, though without prejudice. If reliable sources (books or news stories) turn up on him, then I'd be fine with an article. --Delirium 00:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment An IP address identifying himself as the subject of this article, and I tend to believe it is, has asked that this article be deleted. See deletion vote above from User:65.165.135.218. WP:BLP says: "When closing AfDs about living persons whose notability is ambiguous, the closing admin should take into account whether the subject of the article has asked that it be deleted. There is no consensus as to the weight that should be placed on the subject's wishes, so this is left to the discretion of the closing admin."--Mantanmoreland 17:25, 11 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.