Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob MacKenna


 * 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 of the debate was DELETE. -Splash talk 02:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Rob MacKenna
has been speedied already several times so better settle it with AFd-- -- ( drini's vandalproof page &#x260E;  ) 06:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with the speedy- no real reason to drag this through Afd. Friday (talk) 06:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or speedy I see no means of notability mentioned. -- malo (talk)/(contribs) 06:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * He seems somewhat notable, Dean's Dozen was a big deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.241.217 (talk • contribs)


 * The user was just banned for repeatedly removing the AfD notice. 68.39.174.238 06:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity and now vandalism. Um, he was endorsed by NAMBLA? Sheesh. Herostratus 07:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. I went through three rounds of listing the thing for speedy, having the speedy delete executed, and then having the author create the damned thing all over.  As for the NAMBLA thing... someone was actually vandalizing this non-notable biography as it was being written, which is what caught my attention to begin with.  The whole thing is very hinky.  Tom Lillis 09:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Consider blocking the page to keep it from resurrecting yet again. --StuffOfInterest 14:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: The content has improved a bit. However, his only claim to fame seems to be being an unsuccessful candidate for a minor office.  If it had been better written and not vandalised, we probably wouldn't have considered it a speedy candidate to begin with.  That said, nothing has swayed me away from my opinion to delete this.  Friday (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete and protect from recreation. Failed candidates for minor local offices are not Wikipedia material. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 21:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is this article being considered for deletion? It is an interesting topic for those concerned with grassroots politics. I could easily see a high school kid, for instance, being assigned a project on grassroots politicians, and MacKenna would serve as an excellent source. I understand that Wikipedia is concerned with levels of "fame," but "Dean's Dozen" was a well-known concept, and this entry can actually benefit others. Taking it down will benefit no one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.195.66.44 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 1 December 2005
 * There are certain guidelines for notability, hence WP:BIO. If you take a look at WP:NOT, you find that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  -- malo (talk)/(contribs) 22:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand that, but as I've explained to you, being a member of "Dean's Dozen" IS sufficient, in my mind. I'm not Rob MacKenna, and I can't speak for him, but I find his biography useful and interesting. I understand that the administrators are trying to maintain a positive web site, but I believe the actions of some have been heavy-handed and borderline abusive, particularly "Drini," who seems to take this far too seriously. There is no damage being done here, and people can benefit from this minor celebrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.195.66.44 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 1 December 2005
 * Well that is where we disagree. I personally don't see that being a member of the Dean Dozen as a criteria of notability.  I also disagree in your use of the term "minor celebrity".  But regardless, this AfD is important because it helps define a standard of what is notable and what isn't. Also please sign your comments with ~ Thanks. -- malo (talk)/(contribs) 22:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

192.195.66.44 23:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)I think we can agree to disagree, then, without deleting the entry. This seems like a minor battle for you to be fighting. I know you Wiki people take this site EXTREMELY seriously, but you can't let your personal opinions keep the public from receiving information that could be valuable. I doubt more people in this country have heard of "Popo Bawa" than "Rob MacKenna," yet there seems to be no problem with the "Popo Bawa" entry. I ask you to reconsider this decision to delete, and back off just a bit. Thanks, and I appreciate it. 192.195.66.44 23:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete the only meaningful content is being listed in the "Dean Dozen" but there's an article for that already. --Ajdz

Isn't the whole point of this endeavor to let people edit and write things? This tyrannical and arrogant attitude about deleting certain articles seems to go against what I like about this community. Everyone needs to take a step back, remember what this is all about, and just leave the site up. If you don't like part of it, edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.105.214.15 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 2 December 2005
 * While it is true that anyone can edit almost anything on wikipedia, there still exists standards. In this case, standards of what is notable.  If the consensus is that this person is notable enough, then the page will stay. -- malo (talk)/(contribs) 04:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * keep - Dean was a major contender for the Democrat's Presidential candidate, right? And the thing he was most admired for was the way he marshalled supporters over the internet, right?  Didn't Dean come from nowhere, and rapidly raise way more money than all the other candidates because he raised money over the internet in a way all the other candidates were jealous of?  If this guy was a key member of his team why shouldn't he merit an article?  --  Geo Swan 05:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Those are reasons to have an article about Dean (which exists) or about the Dean Dozen(s) (which exists). Should we make a page for every Congressional intern too? --Ajdz 05:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * How do you know he was just an intern? --  Geo Swan 15:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If you would read my comment more carefully, you would see that I never said he was a intern, that's just another example of unremarkable people who are "members" of something that gets an article (in that example, Congressmen get articles, their interns shouldn't). All the reasons in the "keep" vote above are reasons to have a Dean article, not one for each of his unremarkable minions.  How unremarkable he is is clear from the text of the article itself, which spends a significant amount of time talking about how he was a well-known internet troll. --Ajdz 22:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * But he was much more than a Congressional intern. He played a significant role in a campaign that will likely change the nature of US elections.  People like that deserve discussion on a site like this.Seymour Crane 18:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete This guy obviously submitted a vanity page. If he gets a page, then I should have a page, since I probably couldn't get elected dog-catcher, either.  unsigned comment from User:70.60.113.37
 * Sorry 70.60.113.37, but I don't think your vote counts, unless you log in. --  Geo Swan 15:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * keep - This is far from a vanity page. All the delete-happy people keep saying that Dean's Dozen deserves a page. Well, what happens when someone wants more info on a particular Dean's Dozen member? What if you want to know what happened to that experiment? MacKenna's FAILURE, believe it or not, is newsworthy! It provides a lesson in American politics and depth/detail to a concept everyone agrees was interesting. Look, I can understand how some people might view this as a vanity page. But you also have to admit this is a borderline case. And I always, always believe that more information is better than less information, so in borderline cases, I will always urge Wikipedia to retain the page. Look at it this way: Keeping this page hurts no one. Deleting it potentially does hurt information-seekers. I agree with the poster who mentioned "Popo Bawa" -- I could come up with a list of 50 pages less relevant than this one. This page has been around since September, and no one would have said a word if it hadn't been valdalized, which has apparently been fixed anyway. So just let this go, move on, and everyone will be happy.
 * Delete. I don't see this as notable. Unencyclopedic writing and likely a vanity page. Bmdavll talk 20:31, 6 December 2005 (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.