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 No consensus, default to Keep. Walton Need some help? 19:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC).

Stacy Meyer[edit]

Stacy Meyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article is about a non-notable person who died. Everyone dies, and many who die in tragic accidents are mentioned in newspapers and on the news. We cannot and should not have an article for every one of them. - hmwithtalk 17:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Article is sourced to reputable secondary sourced citations, and is attributed as such. Notable event for the strange circumstances surrounding the death, and subsequent investigation by a Federal Agency of the United States government. If the article remains, it will be expanded upon further by additional citations from reputable secondary sources. Smee 17:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• subsequent investigation by a Federal Agency of the United States government. We will forgive you for not realizing that it was Cal/OSHA, not Federal OSHA (though that is clear if you but read the documents). My question, Smee, is what makes you think that the investigation was somehow special and notable? --Justanother 18:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Per stated above, the unusual nature of the events surrounding the death, as well as the coincidental nature of the fact that a previous unnatural death was being protested at the exact same time of this death, which will also be expanded upon in the article. I would rather not take up the rest of this AFD with a back-and-forth long thread, however. Smee 18:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• All accidental deaths are unusual. If things were usual there would be no-one dead there. And, just for the record, Cal/OSHA is required by law (California Labor Code 6313(a)) to investigate just about every single worker fatality. [1] Nothing to see here, folks, just keep moving. --Justanother 18:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep: Per Smee. The biography is also noteworthy due to closely related protests, controversies, etc. Ombudsman 17:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per nom. There are reputable secondary sources for thousands of other deaths by accidental electrocution and even more for accidental deaths by other means, but having sources still doesn't make all those people notable. The article provides no meaningful assertion of notability. There's an increasing mindset among certain editors that simply being connected to Scientology in some way instantly confers notability. It doesn't. wikipediatrix 18:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. While it is true that everyone dies, not everyone dies in what are clearly suspicious circumstances, and not everyone who dies is the subject of an OSHA file. Nor is everyone who dies the daughter of a controversial attorney for a cult well known for its harassment of former members of said cult and its critics through litigation. This background makes the subject notable. There remains many unanswered questions relating to the tragic death of the subject, and the investigation of events surrounding her death. The circumstances of the subject's death also forms a key part of the Keith Henson defense, and at this time, the Henson matter is a current event. As this article has been only newly created (on May 9), I feel it is premature at this time to list this article for AfD when there are clearly a number of reliable sources in the article already. Orsini 18:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Clearly suspicious circumstances" doesn't equal notability, or else everyone on "Cold Case Files" or "Unsolved Mysteries" would be here. "Daughter of a controversial attorney" doesn't equal notability, because proximity to notable people does not in itself bestow notability. wikipediatrix 18:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - She is notable for the circumstances surrounding her death, as there remains much controversy about it. She is notable on her own merits, therefore her notability is not inherited from her father; rather, her family ties supplement her notability and do not create it. Please show statistics of the numbers of people appearing on "Cold Case Files" or "Unsolved Mysteries" who have died while in the charge of any allegedly religious organization which has had its senior members prosecuted and imprisoned for interference in the processes of the administration of justice, and also pursues its former members and critics with manufactured charges and frivolous civil litigation. Orsini 19:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No indication any authority has pronounced it "suspicious." CAL/OSHA said "a non-criminal accidental death." The suspicion seems to come from anti-scientology websites which misreport the facts. Edison 21:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The OSHA report states the subject entered the transformer room of depth 8 feet with a wooden step ladder of length 6 feet. That is one suspicious fact fact which has not been misreported. Orsini 08:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - notable enough to have been in the papers, also notable in her connection to Keith Henson (who was convicted partly because he protested about it), Kendrick Moxon (Moxon & Kobrin) and New Era Publications. This isn't an isolated slip and fall case. --Tilman 20:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are deaths mentioned in the newspapers daily. My father died, also a freak accident that has yet to be fully explained (7 years later) and there were several subsequent articles in the paper about his death (not in the obituaries, but main articles) and what he had done for Toledo, Ohio during his life. This doesn't mean that a subject is notable enough for an encyclopedia. Newspapers have articles about deaths in cities nearly everyday. - hmwithtalk 22:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - hmwith, my condolences on the tragic death of your father. However, I think the difference between your personal situation and the subject of this article is: (1) primarily, that a direct member of the subject's family is employed by the same organization whose care she was in; (2) both that same family member and that same organization have together been involved in covering up human rights and legal abuses of that organization, in the course of that employment; and (3) the witnesses on record who have made statements about the subject's death have been publicly accused of perjury and giving false testimony in criminal trials, with matters peripherally involved to the subject's death. I believe these factors combine to make the subject particularly notable. I intend no denigration about your father here, but I believe Stacy Meyer's death is more notable (from the standpoint of a Wikipedia article) than his, by reason of her death in the hands of an organization with an extensively documented and well-earned reputation for interfering with official (i.e. governmental and external to itself) investigations. It is also worth mentioning that Kenneth Hoden, the scientology spokesperson quoted in the article about the subject's concern for the welfare of squirrels in the transformer room, has been publicly accused of giving false testimony under oath at the trial of Keith Henson in relation to events surrounding the shooting of a scientologist, and other matters at that trial. As Mr. Henson's extradition is a current event and the circumstances of the subject's death are a key matter relating to this current event, I reiterate my opinion that listing the article for AfD at this time is premature, especially when the article is well sourced as it currently stands. Orsini 04:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think she was murdered, Orsini? Steve Dufour 14:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Tilman, if the OSHA report doesn't say suspicious circumstances then the death isn't suspicious and claiming much suspicion exists, is WP:OR. Saying it isn't an isolated slip-and-fall case is also WP:OR. And, if it isnt isolated, then the conspiracy you ellude to isnt Stacy Meyer, so this event would only be 1 piece of data in your bigger picture. Still not justification for an entire article. And... Wiki is WP:NOT - #6 news reports. Lsi john 16:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While her death at such a young age is sad, that plus her membership in an organization do not add up to notability. I would guess that the rate of accidental death for Scientologists is somewhat lower than that of the general population, for one thing they mostly don't drink. Steve Dufour 21:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete The purpose of such an article would be to crossreference it with Scientology-articles and therefore make Scientology connected to her death, or responsible? Or somehow involved? It is using the death of a young woman to smear Scientology. This is ugly and ashaming but not notable. COFS 04:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC) — COFS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Thank you for providing your opinion, User:COFS. That's one vote for you, per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS. Thanks. Smee 04:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • You are bordering PA here, Smee. I am not going to tell the other guys not to vote or wave their right to have their own opinion, if you like this or not. COFS 04:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am bordering on nothing. This is as per statements made by multiple Admins. Smee 04:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment - Undeclared conflict of interest by User:COFS - Note that User:COFS has an undeclared conflict of interest per WP:COI policy in requesting the deletion of this article. This editor is one of several meatpuppet accounts involved in editing scientology related articles, which are organized from the same scientology headquarters. Thus this editor cannot be considered to be "acting independently" or with NPOV. This matter has been reported on the COI Noticeboard. Orsini 07:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No violation There is no "undeclared" about it. COFS' username would clearly indicate a connection and the user self-identifies as a Scientologist on his user page. Combined with the use of the Church proxy we can assume that he is a Church staff member (I do not remember if he said that already). As far as voting here; COFS is the first user of the Church proxy to vote here so no COI violation. There is no evidence that the Church proxy users are acting in concert and so the "meatpuppet" charge is unwarranted (the proxy is used by Church members worldwide). I will say that any other editors that are Scientology staff members should not now vote here and should only comment to the extent of adding material not yet presented, not to reinforce material already presented. I mention, of course, that AfD is "not a vote" and if another Church proxy user has something new to contribute then they are welcomed. And finally, Orsini, based on your edit-history, I could as much claim that you are a meatpuppet; one of a number of off-wiki critics of Scientology that work together to present a false "consensus". --Justanother 12:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• After reflection, I do not think it is inappropriate for users of the Church proxy to vote on this AfD. There was no evidence that they were acting as "meatpuppets" and, IMO, COI would only apply to their editing the actual specific articles of the Church of Scientology and other Church-owned entities. In other words, the COI would apply if they edit the articles about their employer. Since our critics would create an article about every single person, issue, or firm that has any connection to Scientology, no matter how distant, I think that COFS, CSI LA, and the rest of the Church proxy users have plenty to work on without editing the actual articles about their employer. --Justanother 23:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There is no reason that the opinion of User:COFS in an AfD should somehow be portrayed as counting less than anyone else's. If he's allowed to edit articles, he's allowed to participate in their AfDs. This is a new low in Wiki-bullying and speaks of apparent desperation on the part of anti-Scientology editors, who are demonstrably far more organized and militant in their POV-pushing than the Scientologists themselves. wikipediatrix 18:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - wikipediatrix, do you think the scientology organization itself should be allowed to violate Wikipedia policy to whitewash its image, by removing well-sourced but unflattering information about itself? WP:COI is clear on this point: "(Conflicts of interest can) include, but are not limited to, those posed by edits made by: public relations departments of corporations; or of other public or private for-profit or not-for-profit organizations; or by professional editors paid to edit a Wikipedia article with the sole intent of improving that organization's image." I guess Steve Dufour and wikipediatrix would also assume no conflict of interest would exist if a Ford PR agent edited the Ford Pinto article and removed the section about safety problems by reason of the lame excuse: "it's being used to smear the Ford Motor Company", or listed the article for AfD on that basis. This is a new low in Wiki-bullying and speaks of apparent desperation on the part of the scientology organization, who are demonstrably far more organized and militant in their POV-pushing than the "critics". Orsini 03:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen many an AfD where the subject of the article, or someone directly connected to the subject, put in a 'delete' or 'keep' comment. What usually happens is that someone adds a note saying "let it be known that this user has admitted being an employee of said company, or a relative of said person", or whatever, and that was that. I don't see what all the fuss is about here, because his one vote won't alter the outcome of an AfD, which is actually not a vote. wikipediatrix 02:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Has it been established that he works in the PR department of CoS?
2. Has it been established that he is being paid to write wiki articles?
3. Do we have to prove sole intent of improving or can we just imply it?

Your commentary seems to lack an assumption of WP:AGF. Nobody suggested he wasn't biased. That doesn't imply COI. There are editors with anti-CoS websites, does that mean they are COI editors? Lsi john 03:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - From WP:AGF: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying. Lsi john, you appear unable to understand what constitues a conflict of interest on Wikipedia. Please consult the Help_desk. Orsini 04:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Orsini, I was trying to address the points you raised here. I did not see that you had claimed that he was guilty of repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying. I apologize. Lsi john 04:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here is the statement of purpose of Project Scientology:

"This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics."

How are you going to do that if you exclude Scientologists from the discussion? Steve Dufour 13:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Nothing "special" here - a tragic worker fatality. Happens all the time, unfortunately, and safety professionals do what they can to stem the tide. May as well vote now. I was kinda waiting to see who chimed in on the Keep side; something I always find interesting. --Justanother 13:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Nothing special here? Happens all the time? A woman lifting a 230 pound steel manhole cover on her own, to access on underground vault 8 feet deep with a 6 feet ladder, for the reason there are squirrels in that vault? Either they must breed very strong squirrels in Gilman Springs, or did those little fellows use their OT powers to lift that 230 pound cover? Or do you mean safety violations and death by electrocution are regular occurrences in the buildings inhabited by the scientology organization? Justanother, please clarify these points for we poor "wogs", and clarify also why "tragic worker fatalities" in scientology compounds are "nothing special" and what precisely "happens all the time" in relation to deaths in scientology buildings. Orsini 08:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Orsini, I can see that your field of expertise is more cerebral than physical. She did not "lift" the cover, she slid it off using a loop of wire through the handle. That is what Cal/OSHA says and they are experienced investigators that were on-site. And as someone that has removed plenty of heavy vault covers, let me say that would have been no problem for the young groundskeeper and I have seem slight females do it plenty of times (if it is part of their job, they do not like the strong guys to do it for them). And do you have any idea how someone would access an 8-foot deep hole with a 6-foot ladder? Again, read the reports; she dropped it in against the wall and only had to lower herself two feet to the top step. Even you could lower yourself two feet, couldn't you? That is a misuse of the ladder and a safety violation but so is entering the vault. And does carelessness and disregard for safety and the requirements of their workplace kill workers "all the time". You bet. Those are the things I know. Unlike you I will not speculate on squirrels. Your misrepresentation, innuendo, and "conspiracy theorizing" in contradiction to the report of the experienced and neutral on-site investigators is very helpful and illustrative of the techniques employed by anti-Scientology propagandists, so thanks for the, no doubt unintentional, exposition. --Justanother 15:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Justanother, you have been blocked before and warn for using terms like "anti-Scientology propagandists", almost verbatim. Please avoid language like this. Polite discussion is more conducive to constructive dialogue. Orsini's comment may have been inappropriate as well, but you should not throw around such terminology. Thanks. Smee 15:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• I stand by my statement, Smee. Orsini's misrepresentation, innuendo, and "conspiracy theorizing" in contradiction to the report of the experienced and neutral on-site investigators is very helpful and illustrative of the techniques employed by anti-Scientology propagandists, so thanks for the, no doubt unintentional, exposition. I would bold it or put it in a ((cquote|template)) but that would be bit much. no? --Justanother 15:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't doubt that you "stand by" your statement, but it is most inappropriate. Language like "anti-Scientology propagandists", does nothing constructive whatsoever for anything on the project. Smee 15:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment The report states that the small vault was required to have PVC pipes extend above the roof for ventilation. A squirrel had entered through one of the vents three weeks earlier and been electricuted. The deceased had discussed how much she loved squirrels and that she was worried about squirrels getting electricuted. These were transformers which have insulators a few inches long extending above the metal top with bare 7200 volt conductors. Squirrels often stand on the top and touch the conductors, causing outages due to animal contact. If they are outdoors, sometimes the utilities place rubber protectors over the insulators to discourage this. In an enclosed vault it would not be judged necessary. Edison 16:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOT - What Wikipedia is NOT - #6. News Reports. The article starts off with how she died. The only significant amount of information contained in this article is the investigation. That is the definition of a news report. Looking through the article history, it also appears that the intention of this article may have been WP:SOAP based on all the apparent attempts to blame the cause of death on Scientology. Lsi john 15:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOT and WP:BLP a 'biography' that's only about someone's death - no-Doc^g 16:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteIt was well established in the 1870's that even momentary contact with high voltage AC is usually instantaneously fatal. The CAL/OSHA documents shown as references provide compelling evidence that her death was accidental. She had no knowlewdge of electrical precautions, and had no reason to enter the vault other than curiosity. The small vault had poletop-type transformers with 7200 volt bare conductors a few feet from the floor. She had asked about the vault in relation to a squirrel which had entered it through a vent 3 weeks before and been electricuted. When electricians worked in the vault, they killed the power first. Such a death is very likely when an untrained person enters such a vault. The CAL/OSHA document called it a "non-criminal accidental death." No safety violations on the part of the owners were found which contributed to the death. Anti-scientology websites such as [2] have misstated the facts to try and create a conspiracy theory. There is no reason to have a Wikipedia article on this tragic accidental death. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and the fact that an accideedntal death was reported does not mean it has encyclopedic notability. Edison 20:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Edison, please see the OSHA report, and in particular, the fact that the report states the subject entered a transformer room measuring 6 feet by 6 feet and 8 feet deep, by means of a 6 foot wooden step ladder. You may draw your own conclusions as to how a person can allegadly use a ladder of length 6 feet to enter a room which is 8 feet deep, after this woman also allegadly moved a solid steel manhole cover of weight 230 pounds on her own. I think that any person who can enter a room 8 feet underground using a six feet ladder - according to an offical government document - is very notable. It seems clear that someone isn't telling the truth about this accident. Orsini 08:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I did read the entire report. There would be no difficulty in a healthy young woman sliding the manhole cover off the opening. Female utility workers do it every day. She never had to lift the entire weight. I have seen a similar sized woman move a 350 pound piano (without lifting it!) The report from CAL/OSHA said it was within her capability to slide the cover using the rubber cord which had been left on it after the electricians had slid it off earlier when the squirrel got electricuted, which apparently led her to enter the vault out of curiosity. As for using a 6 foot ladder to enter a vault 8 feet deep, it is not the safest way to enter. Someone could get hurt! One investigator in the report said it looked like she might have fallen from the ladder and touched the bare 7200 volt wire on top of the transformer to catch herself. It would be very easy to make contact in the vault with the live conductors. Utility vaults (better built than this customer vault) often have permanent metal ladders attached to the side, which obviously stop before the exit the vault. It is not that difficult to climb in and out with one. Climbing down the ladder permanently attached to the wall of a utility vault is not that different from climbing down a ladder leaning against the side of the vault. It is original research to claim things are suspicious or impossible when the official report says they are quite possible and that the death was accidental. The vault was a lethal place once an untrained person entered it, and was so hazardous that the electricians killed the power before entering it. The official coroner's report callit an accidental death [3]. An accidental death is generally not the makings of an encyclopedia article. [4] cites 482 accidental deaths a year in the U.S from electricity. Does each deserve an article if it was ain the paper, as they all were? Edison 16:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This death was discussed in reliable sources, so it should be included. *** Crotalus *** 21:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Do you have any idea how many deaths have been discussed in reliable sources? Just about every unusual accident or homicide. - hmwithtalk 23:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reliable source is a requirement, not a justification. Your logic suggests writing an article for every lengthy Obituary in every newspaper, which WP is NOT. Lsi john 23:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep: Per Smee. 65.241.15.131 21:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This unfortunate person is just not notable. Her tragic death was investigated and there was no foul play indicated. Should something change, bring it back. JodyB _talk 21:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The problem is that the real reason this death is notable, the conclusions of those opposed to Scientology who believe that she was murdered or at the very least sent into the vault as punishment, are not attributable to reliable sources. Without that, we don't really have an article; she's just someone who died, probably accidentally. Unless we get confirmation through independent secondary sources that her death is worth discussing, we should not have this article, regardless of whether we believe it is nefarious or not. There is simply no reason for us to have an article that summarizes a CALOSHA report. --Dhartung | Talk 23:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. per Dhartung. I see no reason however, that limited information on her death could not be added to the article Lisa McPherson Trust, an organization founded for the purpose of indentifying deaths of scientologists and suspected human rights abuses by the Church. That article is only a stub. The article on Stacy Meyer contains a quote from that group characterizing her death as suspicious so I would presume they have investigated it or have an interest in the event.LiPollis 02:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just because a Scientologist dies doesn't make them notable. Agree with LiPollis that some information might appropriately be added to the Lisa Mcpherson Trust article. Vgranucci 06:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Shamelessly quoting out of context: One squirrel had been killed when it ventured into the vault, Golden Era General Manager Ken Hoden to Karin Marriott of the Riverside Press-Enterprise. — Erik Warmelink 08:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You did not state a reason for keeping. Edison 16:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Multiple, independent reliable sources, meets notability standards imho as much as hundreds of bios we already have. Keep per undue influence being attempted to squash mention of bios perceived as negative by a certain cadre. Wikipedia is not censored. Wjhonson 20:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Who thinks this bio is negative? I'm not a scientologist, and I don't care who this article offends or not. It's soley notability for which this article is nominated, and I hope others aren't letting personal feelings get in the way of neutral opinions. - hmwithtalk 12:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep News coverage satisfies notability. --Infrangible 20:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The news covers nearly every accidental death. That does not equal notability. - hmwithtalk 12:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - Aren't there enough things about which to criticise Scientology without making up conspiracy theories? There are about 50,000 Scientologists in the USA. Out of that number I would expect a few to die each year of various causes. Besides that, do you think that all 21 year old women are whimps? You just slide the cover out of the way, maybe using a crowbar to lift one side. Then you put lean the ladder, while folded, against one wall of the pit and climb down. Not a smart thing to do but no special strength or skill is required. Steve Dufour 21:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand with more sources. Darrenhusted 22:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wjhonson. Robertissimo 02:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Reliably sourced and notable.--Fahrenheit451 03:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the sources are there. We determine notability based on the existence of sources. Everyking 08:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rubbish!--Doc^g 09:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The news covers nearly every accidental death. That does not equal notability. - hmwithtalk 12:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does if there are multiple, independent, non-trivial sources. Everyking 19:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If. Lsi john 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think there are? There are certainly multiple sources, and most of them appear to be definitely non-trivial. The only way I could see that you might have an argument is that four of the five sources are from the same paper. Everyking 03:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same paper, that's right. You've basically just admitted that this was an event of primarily local interest, as far as media coverage goes. I have a cousin who was also accidentally electrocuted and who was also written about in multiple issues of the local paper, but he was a Methodist, not a Scientologist, and I guess that makes a big difference to some people here. wikipediatrix 16:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly a locally notable death; the sources are multiple, independent, non-trivial in my judgment. Notable also in relation to Henson, and that the case caused Henson to move the court to dismiss the local DA's office from his case, because it showed bias in the Meyer case, in his opinion, which is an unusual application of that right. Hornplease 08:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per Tilman --Kalevala 15:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC) — Kalevala (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Note to closing admin I sincerely hope that you will not fall for all the non-notable and far-fetched "conspiracy-theorizing"; such is not the stuff of an encyclopedia and it can stay on alt.religion.scientology and ARS-derivative POV websites where it belongs and where those few that are interested can find all the conspiracy theorizing that they care to. That one of these ARS regulars, Keith Henson, fell for the conspiracy theories and broke the law adds little notability. The only real issue to decide here is if the local coverage in one newspaper meets the requirements of WP:BIO. I will not tell you how to decide that but simply mention that, yes, an accidental worker fatality in what must be a somewhat mysterious Scientology compound in a quiet area of the Inland Empire would get some local attention. Compare a recent situation where three divers perished while wreck diving on the Spiegel Grove. That got a lot of press attention locally and even nationally and lots of notice in the dive community, a community much larger by several orders of magnitude than the Scientology critic community. Did that make the dead divers; Kevin Coughlin, Jonathan Walsweer, or Scott Stanley; notable? Is Stacy Meyer notable? Or is it simply Scientology and criticism of Scientology that are notable?; areas that are well-represented here. --Justanother 13:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to note: Exactly. I couldn't have said it better myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmwith (talk • contribs) 15:31, 18 May 2007

• Note to closing admin Please excuse Justanother's longwinded diatribe. In regards a Keith Henson "breaking a law": the California state law was lobbied for by the cofs and is called "interfering with a religion". Henson allegedly interfered by picketing their Hemet, CA compound. It is interesting how the cofs claims religious interference when it, in fact, interferes quite actively with freedom of speech.--Fahrenheit451 05:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• F451, can you possibly (just possibly?) make a talk page post without denigrating another editor by name? Is that something you can manage? A yes or no will suffice. --Justanother 11:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article is noteworthy in that it sheds light on possible foul play by the Church. This is a valuable piece of information in the coverage of the controversy surrounding Sceintology; this is why it made it into the papers. -Shadowfax0 16:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a news reporting service. Whether the article "sheds light" on anyone's "possible foul play" or not has nothing to do with notability criteria in an AfD discussion. wikipediatrix 17:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even going to ask how can you shed light on speculation and possible foul play? Light is used to illuminate substance and fact. Lsi john 18:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is nothing in the article to establish why this person is notable. If this article is meant to be notable because of some connection to Scientology then this should be in article and reliably sourced. Without this, it is just a death which was investigated, like many many thousands of others which do not deserve articles just because of an investigation. Davewild 18:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please limit the comments to article discussion. Personal debates should be left on user pages. Thank you.

Lsi john 15:41, 14 May 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.