Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability/Articles for Notability Review/Steven Dufour


 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the notability status 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). No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Deleted Diez2 16:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Steven Dufour

 * – (View ANR) (View log)

Notability criteria have neither been asserted nor established. --HailFire 10:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Non-notable Since when has a propagandist ever been notable? Diez2 16:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Non-notable As the subject of the article, although I am flattered and a bit amused that someone thinks I am important enough for a WP bio, I have to vote non-notable. I am not a professional propagandist, although the Washington Times once did pay me a $15 commission for selling a neighbor a subscription to their weekly edition.  I did take part in several Unification Church projects but only as one of several thousand others doing the same things, not very notable myself.  I never worked for the Church of Scientology, although I did work for Earthlink for a while but not as a "propagandist".  I do take part in the discussion on alt.religion.scientology, but I am not a "key player" there and in fact often express criticism for the actions of Scientologists as well as support for their legal rights.  So you see, although every statement in the article is least partly true it doesn't add up to WP level notability. Thanks. Steve Dufour 19:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Non-notable I haven't seen anything on that page that even asserts notability and a google search doesn't tell me anything to the contrary. If he is notable, it should be noted in the article what he's notable for or it should be speedy deleted. If it wasn't listed here I would have added . I think that the honest statement made by the subject of the article above shows this to be clear cut non-notable and as such should be deleted. I suppose since there's such a discussion an AFD would be in order rather than speedy deletion (for that reason only because as I said it falls under WP:CSD under the article does not assert notability and should be deleted as such. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 19:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Question How long does it take for the article to be removed? Steve Dufour 18:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As of right now, consensus must be reached before an article is removed. This could change though... Diez2 16:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Notable - Four reasonably good cites, more will probably be added by others if time is given. Smee 20:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Non-notable but that could change To me the article reads like original research and some of the claims border on slander ("propagandist"?). In fact I edited a bit of it just now.  If what is claimed in the article were true, and well supported I'd be in favor of keeping it.  But as it is now I say ditch it.  Also, we have a guy who claims to be the subject who is saying much of it is not accurate which until cites are given to the contrary, I'm inclined to give some weight to his claim.  I think strong, compelling evidence is required to keep it. Mr Christopher 23:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I just read the cites that are used in the article to support some of the claims. Based on the cites given I say This article should be deleted at once.  This is awful and the fact we're talking about a living person makes it even more suspect.  Mr Christopher 23:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)