Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gene Baur

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 keep. - Daniel.Bryant 10:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Baur

Spammy bio. Written by the PR shill for the organization as a promotional piece. Even the referenced stuff is inflated puffery. SchmuckyTheCat 00:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my opinion, this page is completely factual and not at all biased. It seems obvious to me thatSchmuckyTheCat just has a problem with Gene Baur or maybe animal welfare in general. Who knows. The sources look really solid to me. If he could even point out one sentence that is biased - it might be helpful. Brooklyn5 00:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You work for the organization. SchmuckyTheCat 02:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CIV and WP:NPA, both of you are starting on a way you don't want to go - feb^talk

Weak keep. Founder of a somewhat notable organization; has been interviewed by the New York Times.--TBCΦtalk? 01:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a good enough article to me. His organization, as far as I can tell, is notable enough - at least there has been no talk of deleting its article - and he has been mentioned by CNN and other notable outside sources. I don't see anything too "promotional" either, seems neutral enough. -Elmer Clark 01:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not noticeably NPOV and seems sufficiently sourced to me. If anything were actually inaccurate or incomplete then it should be corrected but no obvious reason to delete the article. --Zeborah 01:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The article has references and he is the president of an notable organization, although I can see this article being merged with Farm Sanctuary. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 01:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per not violating WP:V i kan reed 01:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But does violate WP:NPOV and WP:COI SchmuckyTheCat 02:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So what's wrong with PR people writing an article? If it's NPOV and sourced, then they're doing their job well. Denni ^talk 01:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's NPOV because other people keep having to come back and police it. The sources are fairly poor for what the article says until other people come along. SchmuckyTheCat 02:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's a spammy article, but there are plenty of sources especially when searching on his married name Bauston.Google News Archive Google Books --Dhartung | Talk 02:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, at least until someone can make it into a proper biography instead of a resume -- feb^talk 04:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given some work, can be transformed into a good article. Minor violation of WP:NPOV and WP:COI can be changed. --[|K.Z|] ^T ^• ^V ^• ^C 04:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Provides sourced bio of prominent leader of major organization of a social movement. Kaydee1970 05:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Had a go at rewriting for better NPOV. Text seems to have remained more or less as in my version, though some additions have been made. Author was understanding about NPOV and providing citations. A couple of citations from the organization's web site might be iffy, but discount those, and there's sufficient independent coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:NOTE. Could use some more work, but don't see any major concerns that'd suggest deletion. Shimeru 07:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The person passes the notability test and if the POV and citation issues are resolved it can be a good article. Whether one agrees or not with what he does is completely irrelevant. --Kimon 21:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I tried to write the Gene Baur page in a non-biased voice. Everything in the article is true and factual. You can find any of this info about Gene in newspapers published all over the web. The article includes numerous citations from reputable sources, as suggested by Shimeru. I definitely welcome any other suggestions or constructive criticism on how to make this a better article and if any changes need to be made to conform to Wikipedia standards. FarmSanctuary 22:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep' provided it is heavily NPOVized. Now reads very much like a PR firm's braichild.--Ramdrake 17:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.