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 Delete ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Addis[edit]

Contested speedy asserting notability. The subject of the article is non-notable per WP:BIO. He set light to an effigy at a festival and was arrested for arson. That's it, that's all he did. The articles creator believes that as it appeared in Reuters it makes the subject de facto notable. I disagree. The article's creator requested a vote, hence the AFD WebHamster 09:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fifteen minutes would be an overstatement. WP:BIO: If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability. Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. /Blaxthos 09:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Completely unworthy of an article; does not even come close to meeting the WP:BIO notability criteria. EyeSerene^TALK 10:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at most redirect to Burning Man, as he already gets a bigger mention there than he really deserves. Not notable in his own right per WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E Iain99 10:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable himself and seems to be a misunderstanding of the notability criteria by the author. There are multiple news stories about the arson attempt but nothing solely about Paul Addis himself. --Malcolmxl5 11:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definately non-noteable person, whose crime was equally non-noteable. I can't see that being headline news! Lra drama 13:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Common (accused?) criminals aren't notable. -- Mikeblas 13:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Delete it now and it'll just come back, even if he's not convicted. This crime and the official response to it is already considered a huge turning point in the history of the Burning Man festival. -- NobodobodoN 17:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC) — NobodobodoN (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment If it is a huge turning point, its ramifications can be described at the Burning Man article. There's still nothing to say about Addis personally, as opposed to the festival, other than that he once (allegedly) set fire to an effigy, so unless he does something else noteworthy, this article can never hope to grow beyond a stub. Iain99 19:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ok, you guys are probably right...I guess being a burner I guess its just that he seems a bit more notable to me. I forgot everyone doesn't go to Burning Man. ;) Brentt 19:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I read about the incident in The Times (UK) today. In a couple of years time nobody besides devoted Burning Man fans are going to know or even care who this guy is, The Times didn't even think it worth mentioning the name of the man that did it. -- Roleplayer 20:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At best he's a petty criminal. --JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 15:35, 1 September 2007 (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.