Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dana Beal

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 keep. Of course, it wouldn't hurt to see the article cleaned up ... what do you say, Stifle? Feel like chancing your arm? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Dana Beal

Seems as though no assertion of notability is made, also tone quite non-encyclopedic Deville (Talk) 23:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless cleaned up. Stifle (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Beal is well known for his work with Ibogaine as well as the Yippies [1]. I agree that it could be cleaned up a bit, but he is notable. IrishGuy 00:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep He is certainly well-known for his work with Ibogaine as well as organizing a world-wide Marijuana Mass Movement in many, many cities that never had one, documenting evidence can be found in many of the 17 300 hits that Google comes up with under his name. The article really does need to be cleaned up, however. Somehow the entry for "Counterculture", for instance, manages to sound decidedly encyclopedic, for instance. This entry could too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.84.41 (talk • contribs)
• Keep, Dana Beal is notable, the problem is AJWeberman seems to have written most of the entry in first person prose and not one of the assertions or statements made are backed up with a single reference. I don't know if there is a third option to keep or delete, but I'd pick delete and replace with something coherent that uses some refs. Delete unless cleaned up is a great choice, but reading the comments, the problem is who is going to clean it up. I would take a stab at it, except I know about Beal sideways through where the Yippies intersect with the hacker underground and unlike the hacker underground which can be researched online with links to non-internet reference material, almost everything I can find about Beal is not a "real world" ref or scan of same. Almost all of it loads pages that use html like pink letters on green backgrounds and instead of finding a NY Times reference, you find old hippies ranting.

Keep, delete, delete unless cleaned up, notable but incoherent? I guess I stick with keep. Could somebody like AJWeberman who understands all this clean it up a little? Weberman's entry is great [2]. 6Akira7 14:01, 9 May 2006 (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.