Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Torc, P.A.C. Bloos

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 of the debate was no consensus. howch e ng {chat} 20:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Torc, P.A.C. Bloos[edit]

Membership in a "neo-druid" organisation does not make a person notable. Listing here instead of tagging as nn-bio to be sure. Delete druidcruft anyway. Kusma (討論) 18:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete around 40 Google hits (substantially less than me, and I am Mr Anonymous 2006); also starts with name as a weblink which is a litmus test for vanispamcruftisement. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete druidcruft. Stifle 23:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important person within various Druid organisations. Do people have to make it to the 8 o'clock news before wikipedia stops deleting them? What harm does this article do? Article no longer starts with weblink. Vorak 22:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article contains interesting information suitable for wikipedia. No real reason to delete. Aneirin 22:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User's only contributions are druid-related deletion discussions. Kusma (討論) 22:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "interesting" is not a valid keep criterion. Notability is. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Again keep this there is no reason whatsoever to delete a good article Ravenlady 22:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's only edits are to AfD pages. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My other contributions are not relevant for this vote. No need to discredit me because I don't vote the same as you. In two other articles I voted the same as you, and there you didn't make this comment, so the intention is obvious. Let's stay on topic, thank you. Aneirin 09:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - See AfD#AfD etiquette for the relevance of votes of new users. About your votes: You voted "keep" for druids related to the New Order of Druids but "delete" for the Grove of the White Dragon deletions, although Mark Smith (Druid) claims more notability than Torc, P.A.C. Bloos. I did not comment on your "delete" votes there because the discussion so far amounts to an unanimous "delete". Kusma (討論) 11:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable Druid. 143.129.120.37 13:24, 17 January 2006 (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.