Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:47, 30 April 2007

30 April 2007

Libricide

Libricide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

article got biased debate Neil zusman 13:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. I disagree with the nom here as to the why, but this is a pretty interesting case. When you have multiple people yelling "neologism" when the concept dates back over 150 years, you have to weight that properly. Combine that with the scholar/books links and there's no consensus for deletion here. Revisit it in a month if it's got no chance of cleanup, but don't delete it based on that discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Bob Dobbs

Bob Dobbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This deletion was not "nearly unanimous agreement" (as mentioned on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bob Dobbs and Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion/Bob Dobbs). He is obviously notable just by how much debate his controversy's have generated on his AfD page. Plus, he has ties to spiritual channellers Paul Shockley, David Worcester, and Ralph Duby (all outlined at User:Eep²/Paul Shockley for now, pending article rewrite). -Eep² 03:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Plus, I find it odd that, for a satirical organisation as the Church of the SubGenius, this person isn't notable with respect to that "church". Seems like the "church" can't take what it dishes out... Hypocracy? -Eep² 03:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Listen to Cosmic Horizons with James Haarp: Bob Dobbs where Dobbs explains his non-affiliation with J.R. "Bob" Dobbs. -Eep² 06:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Watch Conversations with Harold Hudson Channer: Bob Dobbs, 10/12/06 where Dobbs explains his history. The guy's notable, even if what he says is bogus. -Eep² 09:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse original deletion. The exact text of the deletion (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bob Dobbs) was: "There is nearly unanimous agreement, excluding SPAs and newbies, that this gentleman fails WP:BIO, and the current article sorely lacks WP:V." This is exactly how it was. This Deletion Review is little more than a troll anyways, as User:Eep²'s talk page shows him to be having trouble adjusting to Misplaced Pages: he has already used his user page to "preserve" two articles (Eep and Paul Shockley that had previously been deleted.)

As for "Bob Dobbs" (nee Bob Dean) himself, he's a guy who's done nothing but talk about himself, himself, and himself for the past twenty years, while making up outlandish stories about himself in a forlorn attempt to convince people he's important. This is why the article was deleted: in addition to its lack of notability, no one was able to verify Dean's ridiculous claims. Instead, they kept whining about the Church of the SubGenius' evil suppression of such a great man...someone who is so great, he has to resort to making up stuff about himself. Eight months later, the same arguments are being used -- even though this doesn't change the fact that Bob Dean (or Dobbs) is not notable, and his claims are not verifiable. The two podcast links provided by Eep² don't change this; in fact, Eep² himself notes right above: "...even if what he says is bogus." --Modemac 11:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse original deletion. This review is making my head hurt, but the original article was nonsense. I support the creation of a neutral article. Ichormosquito 11:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hold on. Are we simply voting to delete a redirect page? The article is here now: J. R. "Bob" Dobbs Ichormosquito 11:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You have to admit, the article is pretty funny. I hope someone can make it neutral. Ichormosquito 11:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we're voting to retain the deletion of an ego page that a wanna-be "media ecologist" created about himself back in August. No one was able to verify the wild claims of the person in question (Bob Dean), and when asked to do so they whined that the Church of the SubGenius was coming down on him because of his use of the name "Bob Dobbs" (which he used in an attempt to make people think the Church is all about him). So the article was deleted for WP:V and WP:BIO.--Modemac 12:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, valid close of mostly-valid AfD (the exception being some decidedly odd comments). As the article said, While not widely recognized in the mainstream... Quite so. Guy (Help!) 11:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if what Dobbs said was true in order to be notable. Just the fact that he has caused all of this controversy is notable in itself! Even if it's all a lie, so what? There are plenty of notable fictionalists in Misplaced Pages... -Eep² 11:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Dean doesn't claim his lies are fiction, he's trying to pass them off as the truth. That's so what. --Modemac 12:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, again, so what? Lots of conspiracy theorists do that. So long as the article remains neutral, what's the big deal? -Eep² 13:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: While I think the whole thing is funny as hell, it's very likely not encyclopedic to talk about the Church of the Subgenius at all except in a survey article about hoax religions. Regardless, I'm afraid I must elect not to make any meaningful opinion known due to conflict of interest. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, with that mentality, you might as well delete all religion, science, and philosophy-related articles on Misplaced Pages. -Eep² 13:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Stand back, you sandal-wearing, goatcheese-chewing dupe! Think you I am a non slacker? Eat me. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 14:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Um...yea. And this is the kind of people who don't want the Bob Dobbs article restored? I never understood the whole slack movement anyway, but I still think Bob Dobbs is notable. -Eep² 14:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)