Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Melnyk


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

William Melnyk

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

Not notable. The subject is a former Episcopal priest, the author of one novel, and was the subject of a brief bit of news a few years ago when he resigned his orders. The subject himself seems to think he is not notable. Tb (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable. See . ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:ONEEVENT. There is no evidence that Melnyk is known for anything other than a brief flurry of news activity years ago, in connection with one single event.  "The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry....If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted."  Tb (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2009 (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, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * My view remains as it was. Tb (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Insufficient evidence of substantial coverage in reliable sources to overcome the strictures of WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E. Deor (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:ONEEVENT and a barely notable event at that, the Episcopal Church is breaking into pieces expelling a priest for heresy or being a Druid or whatever is just a communion wafer crumb. Drawn Some (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete since there aren't enough sources for his other activities for my taste to carry this across ONEEVENT. Interesting story though. Drmies (talk) 05:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well. It's not looking good for the article. But the coverage is substantial and it doesn't seem to fall under one event because there's also substantial coverage a year later in 2005 when he renounced druidism . So it's TWOEVENT. As there is no WP:TWOEVENT page, I expect y'all will make one so you won't have to double up on ONEEVENT improperly in a way that does a disservice to the science that is basic mathematics and counting. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the question is whether there is any likelihood of this continuing to be of note. It sounds rather as if the purpose of the Wikipedia article is to try and keep the topic alive.  That disturbs me.  Tb (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm CoM...an event and a half? Tb, that kind of conspiracy talk doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Drmies (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTBRIEFFOLLOWUPONEARLIERNONNEWS. DreamGuy (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

As the creator of the article in question, I would point out that Melnyk did receive additional press mention recently--not by his own intention, but because of several later Episcopal cases analogous to his. I suppose he is keeping a low profile, and have no desire to disturb this. He perceives an effort by conservative Episcopalians to embarrass liberal leaders by drawing attention to stories like this. This strikes me as plausible, but still, I found out about him without looking for him. Dawud (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or Redirect - If the book were notable, then there should be an article about the book and William Melnyk could be redirected there with a section on the controversy. Symplectic Map (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2009 (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.