Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wes Vandenburg

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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Vandenberg[edit]

At the center of a school-finance scandal, but not notable as 43 Google hits demonstrate. Daniel Case 04:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 227 hits for "wes vandenburg". Still not a large number, but it made local news so it might qualify. Snurks ^{T C} 05:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep,I'm showing 77 Google hits and notable as he has been accused of misuse of school funds in now 3 differnt school districts. Two in Michigan and 1 in Arizona.

77 Google hits is more than I got, but still doesn't begin to break the threshold. Nor does being accused of a crime in two different states ... if that established notability (notoriety?), we'd have tons of articles on two-bit crooks. Daniel Case 05:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, blatant vanity. Royboycrashfan 05:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sufficient notoriety for inclusion. Adrian Lamo ·· 08:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment... but rename to Wes Vandenburg, which seems to be the correct spelling. Adrian Lamo ·· 08:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Are you kidding? he stole some money from a couple of schools? Completely unremarkable individual. Zunaid 09:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, multi-state fraud is sufficient notoriety. Suydam 12:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment,Correct Spelling should be Vandenburg. 543 hitswhen spelled correctly.
Delete no source, only notable because it's in the news, all that should go on a news page. Elfguy 14:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. We need more current news in Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.230.140.240 (talk • contribs)
Delete, just another boring piece of semi-news. Fraud is not inherently notable. Lord Bob 16:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does this pass the 100-year test? The 10-year test? The one? If it turns out this is the iceberg tip of some fantastic scheme to rip off the world, then yes it belongs here. But only then. Daniel Case 17:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So he's accused in a 2-count charge of stealing up to $21,000 of school funds. nn. By the way: the delete debate is using the "-burg" spelling and the edit tag misdirects. Carlossuarez46 00:03, 9 February 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.