Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rui Gabirro

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 delete. --Ezeu 09:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rui Gabirro[edit]

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}}.

Unverified, non-notable. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Delete Ardenn 22:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with extreme prejudice per nom. While researching this spurious clown, I ran across this, which is the lead Google hit - it's worth a peek for the chuckle value. [1] RGTraynor 22:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for now at least. A cursory glance over Talk:Regular Grand Lodge of England shows this nom to be a backdoor attempt to cut off debate before consensus is reached there. (The insertion of the afdanons box, before a single vote was made, shows the current tone of the debate.) I have no idea whether RGLE is legitimate/notable/whatever... but this is not the way to achieve consensus. --Sneftel 22:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Urr ... isn't this an AfD on the Rui Gabirro article? It's NN and probably spurious on the face of it, without reference to any other debate. RGTraynor 23:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Rui Gabirro's one claim to notability is the RGLE thing. If RGLE is notable, then Rui Gabirro is notable. If it isn't, then he isn't. So why are arguments about verifiability being made here, rather than there? This AfD is only superficially about Rui Gabirro. It's really an attempt to build up a head of steam for getting rid of the RGLE stuff. --Sneftel 02:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are not exclusive to each other as you suggest. RGLE may be notable, (and I'm not saying it is) but this dude may not be. Nothing in the article verifies who he is, and nothing in the article explains why he deserves an encyclopedic article. Ardenn 02:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I don't care a rat's patootie about the RGLE stuff, although at this rate I'm thinking it's worth a good, hard look. Gabirro is NN, period ... and perhaps RGLE is too. RGTraynor 11:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article says he's the founder of RLGE. That would make him notable, at least in the context of RLGE. Yet you didn't propose this as a merge, did you? I agree that the lack of sources is a problem, but things are deleted for being unverifiable, not for being unverified. --Sneftel 02:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being the founder of RGLE is not notable. That's one minor diddly thing he's done for a barely notable organization. If he were Queen Elizabeth II or one of her children, then he would be notable. Do you see the difference? Or if he started Microsoft or Oxfam. Ardenn 02:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Barely notable organization" is exactly the point of contention. The RGLE claims to be extremely notable. You claim that it's non-notable. Whether this article should be deleted or not is entirely dependent on what consensus on RGLE's notability is reached. You seem to be quite active in that discussion, but haven't participated in the Rui Gabirro article at all (other than to add the AfD tag). So why jump the gun? --Sneftel 03:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RGLE can stand alone as an article, without this one. THE TWO DISCUSSIONS ARE NOT RELATED. This afd has to do with this article, and it's lack of notability. It's about seeking consensus, not just what you want. Ardenn 03:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and RGTraynor. Maybe an article on the phenomenen might become appropriate some day. MyNam e IsNotBob 23:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, doesnt pass google test; it isnt a violation of WP:NOT made up at school, as it is a real person, but never the less delete A dmrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 03:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per the RGLE link given above, at worst Rui is an online hoaxster, which means we should not be giving him publicity on Wikipedia, and at best, he's the founder of a very small organization with no real notability (no matter which RGLE lodge you wish to contact, he is the only contact listed - which is an impossible task to keep up with if the org was of any notable size). He doesn't satisfy any WP criteria that would make him article-worthy. MSJapan 04:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. ALR 21:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Regular Grand Lodge of England has been deleted in case it matters to anyone. Ardenn 05:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 06:02, 6 May 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.