Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Eyre (activist)


 * 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. enough consensus for deletion JForget  02:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Pete Eyre (activist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I do not think that any of this amounts to notability. Since possibly controversial, I sent it here instead of using speedy A7 for no indication of notability.  DGG ( talk ) 10:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Admittedly marginal, but the "Motorhome Diaries" project would seem sufficient to this inclusionist. Carrite (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I tend to agree with Carrite. The Motorhome Diaries project was quite a phenomenon but this AfD really underscores the growing inadequacy of WP:RS and WP:N guidelines to accommodate the reality of what is well-sourced and notable. Because of the guidelines, I can't say "keep" without being in direct conflict with the rules (with the possible exception of WP:IAR), but because of how the glaring nature of these guidelines' suckiness is put on display here, I'm finding it difficult to stomach giving my assent to deep-sixing the article. I'll leave that to those who are more willing to walk in lock-step with a misguided community consensus. Tisane (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm happy to jump into this poisoned well. Forget about the rules, I've read this article a half dozen times and I'm still trying to figure out why he is notable. He has worked at all these different places, yet the article doesn't assert what he has actually done as an activist that is important. He sponsored a scholarship, confronts police officers for parking illegally, and refuses to attend Washington Nationals games? Is that it? He uses YouTube to spread his message. For real?! I'm sure he is a pleasant fellow and a smart guy, but his resume sounds exactly like a dozen people I know. If the Motorhome Diaries project was notable and his being "involved" with it was significant, I'm OK with him being mentioned there. Location (talk) 06:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete He has done lots of things, many of which were reported by the media. But there does not seem to be any coverage in depth required by WP:Notable. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment to inclusionists I'm glad that in the USA (and Canada) there is freedom for people like Mr. Eyre to make their verbal and symbolic statements. And really we need people like him. However to make an encyclopedia article worth reading there needs to be some in depth coverage of the person and his effect on society (from reliable sources of course), not just reports of the things he has done. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The Motorhome Diaries project is nifty but it isn't the subject of the article. There's very little, perhaps just enough in the way of reliable independent secondary sources to write an article on that project, but Eyre (IIRC) is just one member of that team and isn't mentioned in many of the articles involved, even less given biographical information. As a result, I don't believe Eyre meets WP:N. --Joe Decker (talk) 08:13, 13 June 2010 (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.