Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stan Romanek (3rd nomination)

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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Romanek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm dubious as to whether or not he is notable per our standard criteria – a few interviews generally don't prove notability. This entire article is a mess as well, and does not comply with the spirit of WP:BLP. There is more to be found in this OTRS ticket as well. NW (Talk) 04:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 04:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request OTRS Info: Just stating that there is more info to be found in the OTRS without providing it does not contribute adequately to this discussion, especially to the Thousands of editors which do not have access. Dubiousness and Spirit of WP:BLP are weak for nomination rationale. Especially since this is the 3rd Nomination. QuAzGaA 02:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unfortunately we cannot let people see OTRS information unless they are an OTRS member or the person who contacted has said we are allowed to show it. Poor form to put it in an AfD nomination. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Per weak nomination rationale as Stated above. QuAzGaA 18:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I've rewritten the article and added more sources which I feel qualify under WP:RS meaning that he qualifies under WP:GNG. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article title does not match the spelling of the person's name within the article (Romanek vs. Romaneck), and the OTRS ticket is irrelevant to 99% of Wikipedia editors, including most administrators, because we can't access its information. I recommend that participants in this AfD and the closing admin disregard the assertion that there is more to be found in the OTRS ticket. For our purposes, there isn't. If there was something to be concerned about in the OTRS ticket, then the Wikimedia Foundation could have deleted the page as an office action, or an admin with OTRS access could have speedily deleted the page. They haven't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Defensive comment - I retracted my earlier comment because it does give voters reasonable information. Unfortuantely NW couldn't release the details of the OTRS ticket but it means that other OTRS users can find it and make appropriate judgements and that non-OTRSers know that there is a reason behind this nomination. Ok, it stinks that we can't be more transparent about it but transparency in all of its forms is a good thing no? I don't think a closing admin will take it into account. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, even without considering any OTRS communication. The coverage of the subject all appears to be either tabloid-style sensationalism or quotations from the subject about UFO sightings, rather than significant coverage in reliable sources about Romanek himself. I have just removed some of the more egregious WP:BLP-violating material from this article, per the spirit of that policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If coverage of the subject is limited to a TV interview, a number of passing mentions in tabloid stories about UFO's, and a book he wrote, then it doesn't satisfy notability guidelines. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ok, this one's a real coin flipper but I have to agree with Phil on the sources. Also, most of what I see in Gnews is about a Denver petition drive to start some kind of committee to investigate alien sightings where the video the subject took is mentioned. The coverage on the subject is weak. This combined with the BLP issues tips me to the "delete' side. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2010 (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.