Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil Patrick Carrick


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 11:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Neil Patrick Carrick

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

Article does not meet Notability Guidelines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability) This article is about a guy with a personal vendetta against a church, and added this article just to inflate a non-issue. Oh and he happens to be a lawyer so he thinks he's somebody.JustGoAway (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - sources given in article not sufficient to demonstrate notability.--Boffob (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep — Article nominated by an IP, according to the history; user registered to work around the AFD nomination. This violates the spirit of the policy that users must be registered to nominate articles for deletion. MuZemike  ( talk ) 18:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the IP/registered user in question has made a bad-faith nomination, quoting that This article needs to be removed for being pointless and useless. MuZemike  ( talk ) 18:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree with speedy keep Surely this is all irrelevant if the article does deserve to be deleted? Furthermore it will achieve nothing, since the AfD nominator can simply re-nominate correctly.  I suggest that a courteous and dispassionate discussion here would be the best way forward. Springnuts (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete not finding significant covereage in 3rd party references. No google book hits, only google news hits are a mention in a obit. This wikipedia article is the first hit in a google search, that's rarely a good sign of notability.--Rtphokie (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, wikipedia is practically the first hit for everything that has an article these days, it's scary. cf. . --fvw *  19:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of significant coverage. At best he would be notable for just one event - but I don't think there is evidence even for this.  Springnuts (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The subject's claim to notability is unclear; the article doesn't explain it. The supporters of this article would be better off editing this article so that the notable aspects of the subject's career are highlighted; an article half the current length might be preferable. There is also some personal information in the article that may merit removal under WP:BLP. Contrary to the nom, the article doesn't say anything about the subject being a lawyer, and contrary to MuZemike, there is nothing wrong with someone registering in order to complete an AfD nomination. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Quite apart from the article being badly written (with repeated use of "would", rather than a simple past tense), the whole notability seems to be a minor scandal in a small network of churches. Seems NN to me.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:NOTNEWS, WP:OR, etc. Bearian (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * merge to Greater Grace World Outreach. Some of this content looks relevant to that organization. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:37, 18 December 2008 (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.