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 of the debate was Delete. --maru (talk) contribs 04:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Dare[edit]

Non-notable coffeehouse owner. The biography is trying to make the owner sound more important and have more impact than he really does. Also see articles Jimmy Nil Fishhawk, Ian Meares, and G. M. Palmer, which fail notability and should be deleted, in my opinion, along with the Stephen Dare page. I want to treat the Stephen Dare voting as if all four were up for deletion. Mike H. That's hot 05:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nn-bio, smells like vanity to me. --Terence Ong 06:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, per nom.--Cúchullain t / c 07:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep It does rather quack like vanity, but it also seems that Mr Dare might have some claim to notability. He has off-wiki news articles mentioning his role in the regeneration of Jacksonville and the theatre company he founded has a wiki article. I'd like to see the article cleaned up, wikified and with cited sources to establish the notability of Mr Dare - then I'd probably be happy to keep. Politepunk 09:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I lived in Jacksonville; believe me, he has not singlehandedly regenerated the 12th largest city in the country. Please reconsider your vote. Mike H. That's hot 20:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I currently live in Jacksonville and no one has ever claimed that he regenerated a city. I lived in Atlanta as well, but i wouldn't be able to comment authoritatively about anyone there either....point is the Jacksonville newspapers seems to think otherwise about the importance of his contribution. —This unsigned comment was added by 64.193.67.231 (talk • contribs) .
    • One interview in a business daily does not "importance" make. I've been in my hometown's mainstream newspaper many times; I don't deserve a Wikipedia entry. Mike H. That's hot 00:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be true, but Jacksonville has five daily newspapers. The largest (the Times Union) lists 29 articles on Stephen Dare alone. None of those hits are included on the hundred or so google search hits. Also, the Times Union only includes articles written after '97, 10 years after his first article in that publication. (I looked it up) The second largest (The Jacksonville Business Journal) has 18 hits over the past three years, also not included in the gooogle search. The third largest, The Financial Daily Record has listed 10 articles either about or mentioning Dare over the past year. The Jacksonville Star, an African American daily newspaper has four articles about Mr. Dare.....the list goes on. I notice that the new links at the bottom of the page list Cincinatti as well. An assistant director at the theatre mentioned articles in the scrap book from Seattle, San Francisco, Atlanta and Indiana.---- which is even more widespread than the Pensacola News Journal.
• Keep Stephen Dare has multiple pages of reference when doing a simple google search. He doesn't own a coffeehouse, nor is he a restaurantuer by trade, although he owns and directs a dinner theatre. When I called him to inquire about the other individuals, he was unsure what the entry was about, and had never heard of 'syncretism'. Mr. Dare's page has been serially vandalized by a group of individuals who have bragged about their vandalism on their myspace pages. reference: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=887943. (scroll about midway down) When I asked about the individual, it turns out he was a disgruntled band promoter. I last updated his wiki article to flesh out his accomplishments, of which there are a number.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.193.67.231 (talk • contribs)

Look at this edit comparison [1], courtesy of 64.193.67.231 (talk · contribs) Thatcher131 20:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Should this AfD be split? The articles for the three (apparently quite non-notable) poets don't have AfD notices, and bundling them with Stephen Dare is somewhat random. Weregerbil 15:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, disregard previous, somehow I failed to notice the poet trio reference at the bottom of the article. Weregerbil 15:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Stephen Dare runs the Boomtown Theatre page, which was created by Stephendare (talk · contribs) last year. FWIW, Dare did not create a page for himself. The current page is probably 90% pure cowpies and you have to go back to very early edits to find a version that even comes close to looking like a verifiable article. The alternatives are to stub the article back to an early edit, verify it, then babysit it; or delete it. I'm leaning toward delete. Thatcher131 20:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lexis/Nexis has several mentions in Jacksonville newspapers. Now who will babysit? Thatcher131 20:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, slash, discuss vanity aspects on talk page. Monicasdude 20:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close as completely spoiled. This is a mess. Three WP:SNOW poets bundled with a train wreck of a possible vanity biography; a technically invalid AfD (as the co-nominated pages have not been approrpriately tagged per policy). Suggest re-list the principal target of AfD and the "poets" separately, speedily close this train wreck. Weregerbil 21:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're from the same part of Florida, supposedly follow the same "movement," yes, it is all related, and have a bit more civility, huh? Mike H. That's hot 21:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please accept my apologies for any perceived incivility. It just seems to me this is an AfD for three nn poets, weakly coupled with a person of unproven notability. WP:AFD suggests not bundling AfD's if not obviously connected; I humbly suggest no such obviousneess exists. No incivility meant, beg your pardon if some observed. Please assume good faith. Weregerbil 21:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Kind of hard to assume good faith when you put an inline image of a trainwreck on this AFD. Practice what you preach. Mike H. That's hot 22:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Technically invalid AfD"? Oh dear god, the process wonks have won over again. You want a stupid little tag on each page? Fine, I'll go do that now. Of course, instead of moping about it, you could have done it yourself. We don't close AfDs for improper "filing" of a clerical nature, so don't be so picky. Don't bother opening whole new slanging matches for the things, just tag it and let this one run its course. Rob Church 21:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Took me 30 seconds. Rob Church 21:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry if you interpreted that as some kind of hostility. It just seemed to me it would be best to list clearly nn articles separately from one that just might not be not nn (though I have my reservations). And yes, the pages listed for AfD were not tagged as such. Sorry for the inconvenience, no hostility towards anyone intended! Is this something one is not allowed to mention? Weregerbil 21:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. entirely non notable person and an obvious vanity article. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 21:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article is full of non-notable babbling trying to justify itself as notable. --Fuzzie (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • • sorry! that would be my fault! I tend to babble. How could I edit this more succinctly? suggestions would be very welcome!
• Delete - per nom --rogerd 00:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. --Roisterer 07:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep slash, discuss vanity aspects on talk page. Perhaps split into three sections, or two: theater and urban development. Many references off wiki. Delete nn poets, but w/multiple off wiki refs., no reason to delete subject. Carstenboswell 14:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Carstenboswell[reply]

Note that User:Carstenboswell's only edits appear to have been this AfD at the time of writing. --Fuzzie (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

? Haven't had anything to contribute authoritatively about---thanks!--I remember enjoying the Fireflies series when I lived in the Bay Area. This is a fascinating process though. Since it is my first time, I thought I would look up the rules, and found this: Also, please see this discussion on the talk page of Wikipedia:Deletion Policy regarding notability. Does this have a bearing? Carstenboswell 18:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)carstenboswell[reply]

• • comment As a side note, I checked out the other profiles. One of them is the editor of an Orson Scott Card publication, *Strong Verse Poetry Magazine which would justify notability as well. I dont think that the fact that two of them are from Florida implies non notability. Reading the history, this AfD seems unfounded. Carstenboswell 21:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)carstenboswell[reply]
• Delete all per nom Cursive 23:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keepnotable, witty writer.ZornArmand 03:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)zornarmand[reply]
  • Note: This is the user's sixth edit, all of which have been to AFD pages. Mike H. That's hot 03:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Can someone please tell me why previous posts are an issue? This seems to be limiting whether or not new people should post or vote at all. If the only votes that count are from long standing wikipedians, then why bother having any new people at all? Carstenboswell 05:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)carstenboswell.[reply]
    • • ahh...nevermind I just read the rules on articles for deletion....explained the whole thing.Carstenboswell 05:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Carstenboswell.[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.