Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleusis/Zwitterion

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. One keep !vote is based solely on the notion that the nomination was flawed. That notion is incorrect and the !vote is therefore disregarded. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eleusis/Zwitterion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable Usenet personality. Epbr123 12:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 12:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete only claim to notability is running a meth lab and getting caught. The fact that he only served four years suggests that it wasn't exactly the crime of the century as the article makes it sound. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This was highly notorious at the time, when USENET fancied itself a sort of uncensored, uncensorable freenet (as opposed to a free-net), thus it was "shocking" that someone could post drug-lab info online and be arrested for running a drug lab. It wasn't something the EFF or allies got behind, though. --Dhartung | Talk 04:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability doesn't expire. --Cheeser1 03:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Epbr123's recent AFDs of nine Usenet personalities listed on the Notable Usenet personalities page, and of that page as well, seems to be contrary to the multiple deletion procedure. The purpose of that procedure is to allow reviewers to see and evaluate the collection of AFDs as a whole. That is not possible here because Epbr123 listed all of these AFDs separately. We therefore cannot have proper context for this discussion. Jeh 16:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entries weren't similar enough to be nominated in one AfD. This shows a lack of understanding of the multiple deletion procedure. Epbr123 16:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it shows YOUR lack of understanding of the multiple deletion procedure. They are related in that their claim to notability derived at least partly from Usenet, and from the Notable Usenet personalities page... and you seem to have found them all from that page. Shouldn't voters for any of these pages be aware of the fact that you've nominated so many other related (in that way) pages in quick succession? I think they should. Jeh 17:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't matter what their claim to fame is. Each one has to have been covered by reliable soutces; the vast majority haven't been. Epbr123 17:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • This page has TWO sources and is marked as a STUB. Putting it up for deletion is entirely inappropriate. It has enough sources for WP:V and appears to pass WP:N, even if it doesn't have enough reliable soruces. You sould have tagged it as {refimprove}, or just waited for it to expand (it is marked as a stub!), not nominated it for deletion. --Cheeser1 03:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jeh and per WP:N =/= WP:RS and because notability does not expire. -Cheeser1 03:14, 8 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.