Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Carmichael (Scientologist)

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. The article is well-cited, and the subject is covered in multiple major papers; this is grounds for inclusion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Carmichael (Scientologist)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Non-notable Church executive and occasional spokesperson whose claim to fame per the article is losing it and uttering an obscenity which was picked up by one blog but is not otherwise noted or of note. Fails WP:BIO Justallofthem (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I feel this article was written properly and conforms to Wikipedia standards and is notable enough to keep. NotTerryeo (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC) — NotTerryeo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep President of a major branch of the organization who seems to have attracted both favorable and unfavorable press. Edward321 (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence he has significance beyond an award granted by the church of which he is an executive. The utterance seems to test the very limits of WP:ONEEVENT. --Dhartung | Talk 04:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Person of significance to an organization who has managed to attract attention through his actions. --Laomei (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC) — Laomei (talk • contribs) has made few or no other recent edits outside this topic. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Have not had a chance to expand this article yet but the individual is notable and there is a significant amount of information to be added from tens of secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources. Also agree with Edward321 (talk · contribs), President of major branch of an organization. Cirt (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real claim to notability. Award is from own organisation, no non blog coverage for controversy. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable member of notable organisation who has been quoted several times in major press. --Mcr hxc (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC) — Mcr hxc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the Head of a Major Org, together with the various awards he is notable. Quoted often in news stories, together with the recent controversy, he is def notable. Cirt seems to be adding much to the article Arabik (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC) — Arabik (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep per Laomei and Arabik. Robertissimo (talk) 15:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC) — Robertissimo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other recent edits outside this topic. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - With a couple of thousand edits total over several years, it feels odd to have my opinion devalued simply because I've had a busy spring; I have in fact been participating steadily, albeit on a very small scale, since having to scale back at the start of 2008...Robertissimo (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well written, sourced and I think he is notable. Nxsty (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC) — Nxsty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC) — That is a pure lie, check my contributions. In fact I haven't done a single edit to any scientology-related page, if you don't count the dianetics talk page. Nxsty (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Long term member in a position of authority within a large and powerful religion. Article needs a bit more info on him perhaps but its certainly not something we should delete! 220.231.61.34 (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC) — 220.231.61.34 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important regional exec for Scientology, with long term notability. (See refs I've just added to the Talk page to be worked into the article.) AndroidCat (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
sighcloser may wish to note.Geni 23:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Head of large Scientology organisation, and is clearly notable.Г^edʃtǁcɭ 01:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - I'll AGF and assume the nominator tried to improve the article before nominating? There is definite notability here, can the article has been cleaned up using VS. DigitalC (talk) 02:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Duffbeerforme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.149.157.241 (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of this comment, this !vote was the only recorded edit by this IP address. ChaoticReality 00:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am noting that a large number of keep votes are coming from editors that either do not have a lot of edits outside the topic or have not edited Wikipedia much recently but seemed to have returned to cast a keep on this issue. I am not assuming bad faith as they are certainly entitled to their vote but this is indicative of canvassing, likely off-wiki canvassing; please see the note by Geni above. This activity speaks to the limited interest and limited notability of the subject and I think that deletion is the proper course for this article. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the {{!vote}} template to the top. On a related note, you tagged a few users who are clearly not {{spa}}'s - please remove the tags for those users. Cirt (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cirt, you have been very hasty in tagging some of the users here as SPAs. It might also be worth the closing admin noting that Justallofthem appears to be quite heavily involved in Scientology related articles with a possible POV towards removing/playing down controversy. ChaoticReality 22:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I specifically removed the SPA wikilink from editors such as Robertissimo that are not SPA. However, that does not change the fact that these editors had few recent edits outside this AfD and combined with the comment by another editor re the enturb.org thread on this article it is important that the closing admin take this into account when determining what might constitute "consensus" in this case. As far as my editing, you might want to take another look at WP:AGF. --Justallofthem (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed. I'm not complaining when it's valid (my first contribution to this discussion was to tag an IP for having no other edits). I did AGF up to a point but it did strike me how hard you appeared to be pushing for this article to be removed. Then again, we all see things differently. Best, ChaoticReality 12:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing. Not really pushing hard. just the initial nom and noting that a bunch of dormant editors seem to be coming over here to cast keep. If I was pushing hard I would be debating points with multiple editors. Yes, I am a Scientologist but that is no secret. I don't mind criticism of Scientology, I do have a problem with this project becoming a mirror of ED on the topic and specializing in highlighting anything negative about individual Scientologists. The "I smell pussy" thing is entirely non-notable and partisan but we have it, don't we. Hell, if we are going to have then let's drop the euphemism of "uttered an obscenity" and let's all smell pussy along with Carmichael. That is what the partisans want. We even "have" to include in Carmichael's bio that Jason Beghe said he smelled pussy, too. Off-topic but hey, who cares, this is a Scientologist we are bashing here. --Justallofthem (talk) 22:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise you were a Scientologist (nor do I care) and I do not support discrimination or bashing of anyone based on any factor, including religion. I realise it is very easy recently to bash Scientology (although I'm not sure the RTC is doing itself any favours, but that's another matter) but I disagree that this is becoming a mirror of the ED page, although I do see where you are coming from (Please remember, though, what you said about AGF; these could just be people who feel strongly on the issue). I don't think the incident should be mentioned in the article, as it is trivial but I do believe that Mr Carmichael is notable for other reasons (as are a lot of prominent religious leaders (see Bishops and stuff from the Christian Church)) which is why I've kept an eye on this AFD (and will shortly be adding my "!vote! opinion for a keep. ChaoticReality 23:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you feel the incident should not be in there then please feel free to remove it. This is the sort of thing I object to. Perhaps Carmichael is barely notable to be in this project (perhaps not) but his insulting an individual anon is hardly notable. Shameful perhaps, but not notable. Guy under stress loses it a bit. Not suitable for an encyclopedia fer Xenu's sake. Only made it in the press at all because of one partisan blogger at one tabloid. Anon admits to stalking his helper Megan in the same video (and elsewhere admits to driving her to tears). Also shameful behavior. Not encyclopedic either. This article only showed up here after the "I smell pussy" incident and then an after-the-fact effort to scrape up notability. That ain't right. --Justallofthem (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The effort to scrape up notability may have been after the fact but I think notability has been established. The same has happened in the past where articles have been CSD A7ed but then notability refs have been provided. I would argue that means the article stays but that's just my opinion. ChaoticReality 00:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are several factors going on here - 1) He is a high-level executive in a very large organization, and has received awards within the organization (Notability ++). 2) He is commonly the spokesperson for the church to the media (Notability ++). 3) He has been the subject of coverage in major news media for his recent controversial actions (Notability ++). ~~4) The coverage of him tends to be about the single controversial event (Notability --)~~. On net, these factors point towards notability. Z00r (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I reject the view his middle manager status, makes him notable. If it did, we'd have to give articles to most regional managers of large coporations, which we don't. An award from his own organization is also pretty insignificant. However, the NY Times wrote a non-trivial article on him, giving truly biographical information about him. He's got coverage for his personal deeds, not just puppetting the party line. --Rob (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's enough coverage in the sources cited to confer notability even without the "I smell pussy" incident. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:37, 9 June 2008 (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.