Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oliver DeMille


 * 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   keep. Cirt (talk) 04:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Oliver DeMille

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

Notability not established. Lead implies he is a prominent figure in the homeschooling movement, but body of article may fail to establish this. The article may be primarily OR; it is nearly all about investigating the academic portion of subject's curriculum vitae. Hurmata (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not create this article, but did have a hand in expanding it. The original article was a puff piece but I believe did establish his notability. Please, if you find an instance of OR in this article point it out and excise it by all means. However, as it stands DeMille is notable enough for an article, and the tedium kind of is what it is. The man has a lot of educational claims; the article sources the detail behind them. --TrustTruth (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and edit for POV. The present article come very close to being an attack piece, example a "see also:Resume fraud" at the third sub heading, which I have now removed, and other parts represent OR. see for example the discussions of the general nature of a PhD, intended to imply that his wasn't genuine. This may or may not be true, but we just give the facts,  without leading the reader to the conclusion--and we do not editorialize by boxed quotes.  I can understand why upon seeing  this article, one might want to remove it, but the solution is editing. I've just now removed some of the worst, but it's still in the page history as a bad example--and I have not yet attempted to rewrite the part aboput the degrees. . (there's some equally bad editing in the other direction a little further back). DGG (talk) 02:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem was even worse than I though--a good the bio was devoted to negative allegations sourced only by a personal web site. I have removed that source, and everything depending upon it. I think I got all or almost all of it, but  I think there is enough left for an article, and to show that he's notable.DGG (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In working on it, I observe that UserTruth had readded much of the prejudicial poorly sourced material, and inserted additional material from primary sources, intended to suggest by malfeasance of various sorts, in what amounts to OR. If it is the intention of that user to make an article impossible, he is trying hard. I have just made another pass removing improper material. I think this article should be kept, but it will need watching. I have warned the editor mentioned about WP:BLP. If he continues to violate it, I will consider banning him from the article.DGG (talk) 05:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That is absolutely untrue. Please respect WP:CIV. I have re-added none of the material you removed, and added nothing prejudicial, and nothing from the Diploma DeMille article. Check the history. Yes, I have presented the multiple versions of his CV in a table, but that is hardly OR. Each line in the table is primary-sourced. All I have done vis-a-vis the DD article since you removed most of its related material is add information in the footnote on the article's inclusion in a third-party journal. --TrustTruth (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep He seems notable enough. The article is very hard to follow however. I feel that I should say that a person could have an irregular education and go on to do great things, or have an outstanding education and never be notable. So more of the article could be about what he has done and less about his education. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the flow needs work. I think the education section (which could definitely be pared down) is important based on the fact that his books and speaking engagements etc. are almost entirely based on his own educational experience (his version of it at least). Since he brings up the topic so much, that's an open invitation for increased scrutiny, hence the large amount of content in that section. --TrustTruth (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears to meet WP:PROF. The article itself could use improvement but that isn't a reason to delete it.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability established --Dreamspy (talk) 18:57, 27 September 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.