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 speedy keep, it's snowing. (NAC)--Jmundo (talk) 04:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan molyneux[edit]

Questionable notability and totally unsourced. A WP:BLP mess that should be deleted without prejudice or stubbed. Justallofthem (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note from nominator - Sorry, I messed up a bit on this one. I noticed the article while at my office here and was not really able to devote the time to taking a proper look into it. The BLP-violating tone caught my eye and the fact that it seemed to have started as a puff piece and then morphed into an attack piece. Neither tone is appropriate. However, I do believe now that we should have this article or one on Freedomain Radio but that it should be stubbed and rewritten by neutral editors. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to Freedomain Radio and rewrite to focus more on the show or movement. To my mild surprise, the sources that are given in the inline links are actually feature articles from The Guardian and the Toronto Globe and Mail about this fellow and his teachings. That counts to me as verifiable, topical coverage in reliable sources. I will be moving the article to Stefan Molyneux per the standard. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I trimmed a lot of unsourced accusations that were made just before the article was Afd'd. Edward321 (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to Freedomain Radio and rewrite to focus more on the show or movement.

It's not "totally unsourced", it's TOTALLY SOURCED! Besides, that's not a criteria for deletion initself; rather, one for clean-up. Saying A WP:BLP mess that should be deleted without prejudice or stubbed. is extreme!

We can discuss what's suitable for publication, but we don't just censor information that is in the public domain for someone's convenience. The issue for me is whether this page was created by a follower of the subject as part of a self-publication campaign.

Trollfinder-General —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.117.182 (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS I've added the source - they were made live on air on two radio programmes recently on Jeremy Vine show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.117.182 (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as an unreferenced biography of a living person. I'm sorry, but the policy is clear in that sense. Unreferenced information about living persons can be harmful not to mention libellous. If users want to clean it up, then proper citations must be added - in that case I will gladly change to a keep. MuZemike (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has multiple links to coverage of the subject in reliable sources. To "strong delete" on the basis on citation format is to invite ridicule. Skomorokh 20:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I could not see the verifiability when there is nothing but external links floating around. Anyways, now it looks better and hence OK for me. MuZemike (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As someone who !voted to delete in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan Molyneux, I must urge a keep verdict on the basis of the evidence in the article of significant coverage of the topic in multiple reliable sources. It is beyond question that the subject now meets our notability threshold on the basis of the Globe and Mail and The Guardian sources alone. Skomorokh 20:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change to keep as the BLP referencing has been remedied for a good part. The sources indicate notability easily. MuZemike (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Stefan Molynuex Since I last posted the article for deletion, I changed my mind. Stefan Molynuex has gotten a lot of coverage, even more than Skomorokh as shown by these example: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Lord Metroid (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2009 (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.