Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicki Aznaran


 * 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 speedy delete (requested by author). PeaceNT 11:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Vicki Aznaran

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

More Scientologycruft, fails WP:BIO. This non-notable person did some affidavits in court appearances (and subsequently went back and recanted them). Gets 155 unique Ghits and most of them are blogs, personal homepages, and junk. wikipediatrix 14:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Even I get more Ghits! ^^  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   14:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable.  Dei z  talk 14:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, without prejudice. I think a short article could be done with enough sources to show notability, but this one isn't it—and it's too much of an unsourced BLP problem right now to let it stand. AndroidCat 16:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * KEEP The sources are the affidavits she filed, the links are there. You can't just delete an article about someone who filed a seventy million dollar lawsuit against CoS, by pretending the person is non-notable. I see the wikipediatrix completely deleted the paragraph describing Vicki's recant, claiming it was unsourced, which was untrue. Suppress inconvenient truth much?S. M. Sullivan 18:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but personal homepages aren't valid sources per WP:RS and WP:V. wikipediatrix 19:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Comment 'a sworn affidavit reproduced on a personal homepage or personal website is another matter entirely. Viz, all the cites of affidavits and records sourced at Operation Clambake, in WIkiarticles here. Operation Clambake is a personal website.S. M. Sullivan 20:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * depends what the records are. I don't think a person's affidavit is not intrinsically reliable unless the facts have been relied upon in a judgment or reported in a RS. DGG (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Or, they may be notable if they are regarded as an important figure or are widely cited by their peers or successors. Vicki Aznaran was President of RTC and Inspector General, the same post held by David Miscavige, immediately before DM's rise. She left the CoS and sued the church for 70 mill. She was considered an expert witness by church critics involved in litigation against the church, and was used as such by them for several years. Did she suddenly become 'not notable' when she recanted, despite having been very notable and worthy of credence before? Or is the real problem that she's an unperson who must never be mentioned because of the recant? S. M. Sullivan 04:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment--WP:Notable says a person may be notable if they made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their field.


 * Comment. For some reason, last night User:S. M. Sullivan blanked out the article and its talk page (despite "do not blank the article" being written in plain English on the AfD tag) and put up the db-author speedy delete tag, resulting in its deletion. Rather bizarre thing to do for someone who had just voted to keep the article, but I suppose that, as they say, is that. wikipediatrix 13:18, 23 August 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.