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. The article will be deleted if User:Coryburnell confirms his identity, per the standard treatment of "no consensus" AfDs in which the subject requests deletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cory Burnell

[edit]

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

The subject is borderline notable, if notable at all. The only secondary source which appears to be about him is no longer accessible. Various single-purpose editors have deleted his only noteworthy activities: his well-sourced participation in two separatist groups. I'm guessing the subject now finds these past activities embarrassing. Rather than continue to tussle over the bio it seems like it'd be simpler to just delete it. The subject would still be mentioned as a co-founder of a notable group, Christian Exodus, but his other activities, like starting a meet-up group, are not noteworthy enough for a standalone biography or even worth a redirect. Will Beback talk 08:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This is not the way to resolve content disputes. Burnell has obviously received significant coverage in news sources - a simple gnews check reveals numerous articles, such as Christian movement moving in from USA Today. St Anselm (talk) 11:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many crappy refs, but there's gold amidst the dross; between the Seattle Times and USA Today articles there's a clear pass of WP:GNG. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject disputes accuracy of secondary sources. Nothing's notable other than founding of Christian Exodus and subject is referenced as such on that page, consequently this article is redundant from a notability stand point and should be deleted. Anteater21 (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence at all that the "subject disputes the accuracy of secondary sources"? St Anselm (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I second that question. I'm not aware of the subject himself making any statements about this material. Some editors have objected, but none have identified themselves as the subject. Will Beback talk 01:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know Cory Burnell and will tell him to post here. Anteater21 (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A content dispute is not ground for deletion. Three solid sources (Seattle Times, USA Today, and the Wall Street Journal) establish notability. What we need to be discussing is why several statements that are well-referenced continue to be deleted from this article, and what should be done about it. I propose that this page be protected. If the subject disputes something in the article that others can substantiate with reliable sources, he should handle it through WP:OTRS rather than weighing in here or having his friends continue to wage an edit war, per WP:BLP. Steve Carlson^Talk 06:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it seems reasonable to relist in anticipation of possible comments of the subject to which Anteater21 refers. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've emailed Anteater21 to let him know the discussion has been held open temporarily to allow further comment. Will Beback talk 21:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the subject clearly isn't notable. A few 1-segment appearances on TV doesn't qualify anyone as notable or deserving of a listing in this encyclopedia. Turner17 (talk) 07:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I direct the Delete proponents to WP:GNG, which states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Burrell is mentioned in significant detail in several reliable sources; done deal. Whether he is now embarrassed by some of his past involvements - as the nom suggests without proffering any evidence of the same - is irrelevant. Whether he disputes the accuracy of the news reports - again, something a Delete proponent alleges without proffering any evidence of the same - is irrelevant. Ravenswing 08:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Gentlemen, thank you for your involvement in this discussion, and I apologize for its controversy using up your valuable time. My friends have correctly posted that I didn't hold an official post with the Texas League of the South, but my involvement was mistaken as such and that misinformation was then repeated. However, as to being embarrassed about it or any other activities that's simply not the case because there's nothing to be embarrassed about. The Texas League had no sinister or racial motivations that I ever witnessed, but was solely focused on Texas independence - a notion that's gained momentum in recent years. It's unfortunate that misinformation quite easily spreads these days and the League of the South has been a victim of this with perception overwhelming reality... so few people make any effort at truth-seeking beyond perception (and no, the Southern Poverty Law Center is not an objective or credible source LOL :-). I'm sure that's what's given rise to the sensitivity surrounding accuracy with my associations with the Texas League of the South; accuracy being necessary because perception isn't accurate. So as the subject of this article, I'd ask you for two considerations: either 1) please delete the incorrect reference to my holding an official position with the Texas League, or 2) delete the article entirely to end any future controversy. Please contact me if I can provide any further information to keep the record straight. I thank you all in advance and wish you all the best. Coryburnell (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)— Coryburnell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I have temporarily removed the League of the South statement from the article. However, it is in the cited source (the Seattle Times), and so we would need confirmation before making the alteration permenant. Please could you contact the Response Team at info-enwikimedia.org to confirm your identity (in theory at least, anyone could register an account under the name User:Coryburnell in an attempt to derail this discussion)? Yunshui 雲‍水 14:33, 15 February 2012 (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.