Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darren P. Grover

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 Speedy Delete LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 06:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darren P. Grover

• strong Keep, This article clearly states the local, national, and international importance of Darren P. Grover, a search on Google brings up several hits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukpcdaz (talk • contribs) 23:56, 25 January 2006
• Delete, non-notable. And please, stop messing with the afd notice. --M@rēino 23:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• This doesn't really seem notable enough for wikipedia, plus the part about a dead bishop writing a song about him calls the rest of the information into question. Weak Delete. Fightindaman 23:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Subsequent disucussion here has led me to alter my vote. Fightindaman 02:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment perhaps we should merge a delete vote on Darren Grover into this as well?
• keep I've seen a few articles on Wikipedia about people whom I would consider "non-notable". It is a questionable subject. Hovever, I believe that if there is any significant information at all in an article, it should be kept. Given that Google searches provide hits, if correct citations are given, I see no reason why this article in particular should be removed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by RealVictory (talk • contribs) 00:11, 26 January 2006
• keep Since there is no other "Darren P. Grover" already in Wikipedia, then surely this is the most significant occurence of a "Darren P. Grover"? Doesn't this mean that the article must be based on a relatively significant "Darren P. Grover"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RealVictory (talk • contribs) 00:16, 26 January 2006
  • Comment is this discussion on-going?
• keep In concurrance with that of previous posts, I agree that this article should be kept on the grounds that the google searches do result in numerous results, and since the information has now been cited, it should be allowed to exist, pending on-going editing, of course.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukpcdaz (talk • contribs) 00:52, 26 January 2006
• Delete - The links on the article don't actually link to any information on this individual, making them useless. The awards he's supposedly won don't seem very significant to be honest and without suitable references or any other significant notability he doesn't fit the criteria. Oh, and please sign your comments with four tildes, as this makes it easier to see who's said what. exolon 01:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless verified. Probably non-notable anyway. Dlyons493 Talk 01:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• keep, how can someone who contributes to local, national and international communities directly, not be notable? The links, as far as I can see, do relate to what is being said, and provide sufficient proof in my opinion. Of all the people on celebrity big brother, I had heard of only one, but they're all classed as notable! Dennis, who the hell is he? is he famous for being an arogant womanizer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukpcdaz (talk • contribs) 01:16, 26 January 2006

• Comment: I've counted 5 keep votes by 2 editors. Uh uh. --Calton | Talk 01:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Uh Uh. ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukpcdaz (talk • contribs) 01:33, 26 January 2006
    • Stop. Ixnay. Alto. Don't do it. Cut it out. Cease and desist. Halten Sie. Go forth and sin no more. Ixnay on the oubleday otingvay. Capiche? --Calton | Talk 01:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• And now that I've read it, delete. --Calton | Talk 01:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I didn't think that the decision was determined by voting; I was just giving my reasons, so that is fair. realvictory 01:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Can I suggest, that those who wish this article to be removed, do their own independant research, and should they wish edit the article as they see fit; then let others judge the validity of the person to have an article.
• Delete It is vanity when an article asserts "the large size of Grover's genitalia" isn't it? Ruby 02:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The song, written by the infamous and very talented singer/songwriter is actually available for download on numerous internet sites, as well as being available on CD.
• Comment: The user RealVictory who has voted here has made no contributions anywhere besides the article up for deletion and the deletion vote. Just something to take into consideration. Fightindaman 02:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity. Golfcam 04:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. *drew 05:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable, vanity, bad. I'm not thrilled with the behavior of certain editors with regard to this vote, either. -Ikkyu2 06:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity and annoyed at double voting. Stifle 09:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nn-bio, as it was originally tagged. Probably swapped from speedy to AfD to extend its life as long as possible. Turnstep 12:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as above--Bill 15:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• keep, I happen to know Darren, and I think he fully deserves an article on this site. I also have no idea who these other people are, but what they have written seems accurate enough. 17:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Helzagood 17:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • comment: Helzagood's contribs list consists entirely of edits to this page.--M@rēino 17:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • comment: Thats because I only signed up today, because I saw people wanted this page deleted!Helzagood 17:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment: I don't see how contributions to other articles are relevant - we're only talking about this particular article. I don't think it makes comments any less valid, which other articles someone has contributed to. The reason I edited this article was because I was trying to improve the validity of it, no other reason. I did not create the article. If it is deleted, so be it; I was simply expressing my opinion, which is the whole point of this discussion, and I don't see how my opinion is any less valid than anyone else's. If it turns out that other people's opinions are considered to have more weight than mine, then that defies the whole purpose of this type of encyclopedia - it becomes subjective as opposed to objective, and thereby loses its purpose. Also, the fact that I typed "keep" twice is irrelevant; I don't consider it a double vote - one person has one vote, no matter how many times they state their opinion. realvictory 23:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • • Also, the fact that I typed "keep" twice is irrelevant It's completely relevant: you put your THREE (not two) "keep"s in bold, and you did NOT sign any of them, giving the appearance of three separate votes. Also, Wikipedia is not democracy: voting is a convenience for the admins who close out the discussion, to give them an immediate sense of the general direction of the discussion. --Calton | Talk 05:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: It's relevant because decisions are made the wikipedia community. Those who sign up purely for one article (or look like they may be a second account of somebody trying to protect an article about himself) don't get the same weight as those who have demonstrated their interest in the project in general. There's nothing subjective about that. Fightindaman 23:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: If someone "looks like" they don't care, and you base a decision on that, then that is being subjective - there is no proof. If someone is taken more seriously than another person because they signed up earlier than the other person, then that is being subjective. Taking someone less seriously because they haven't edited as many articles isn't fair. I could go away and edit as as many articles as I like, but when I came back, it would have made no difference to the credibility of this particular article. This is a discussion about this particular article. However, even if it was about a user as opposed to an article, voting against someone because they've edited no articles yet would mean that they would never get to edit articles, because no one would let them. It's about this particular article, and why this particular article is worth keeping or deleting. It's not about whether or not a user has been signed up for a long time, or whether or not a user has edited other articles. I think that the deletion of this article by voting is censoring information based on opinion. What is important is facts about this article, not about whether people like the article or not, not about whether people like the editors or not. realvictory 15:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I DID NOT vote three times. I DID NOT type "keep" three times. I voted ONCE and I typed "keep" twice. The comments I made have my signature by them. I SIGNED MY OWN NAME next to my articles since I was asked to - I don't think you can complain about that. I HAVE ONE USER NAME. I find it offensive that anyone could believe that I might think that having two user names makes a difference. I can't make you believe me, but blaming someone without proof is wrong. More than one person can edit an article, without having created the article. The reason I voted "keep" was because it was MY OPINION. This is completely legitimate; please don't blame me for doing things I didn't, making mistakes which I corrected, or especially simply because you disagree with me. None of that is logical or fair. realvictory 15:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete with all possible speed (nn-bio). --Hansnesse 01:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment OK, so you're saying the voting doesn't really mean anything, what really matters are the reason for the vote - so why has nobody given a VALID and COMPLETE reason as to why they believe the article in question should be removed? Except for insulting the editors and making wild, unfounded accusations, which IS offendsive, and which is ATTACKING OTHER CONTRIBUTORS ,Ukpcdaz 01:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Many people have given a valid and complete reason: this is an unverifiable biography of a non-notable individual which to all involved (excpet for the contributor and his friends) seems like little more than a vanity article. That good enough?

It is perfectly verifiable, check any of the references given, and you will see full evidence. The person is well-noted, and is worthy of note in Wikipedia. Just because some people are unaware of notable Britons, does not mean they are not notable. Ukpcdaz 02:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• The seaturtle.org site seems completely superfluous. The awards site does not seem to list winners from any year beyond 2005. Lastly, your personal webpage is NOT a reliable source. Perhaps you should stop referring to yourself in the third person, since it appears that the domain darrengrover.co.uk is hosted at ukpcdaz.atspace.com. Anything else to say Darren?Fightindaman 02:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you please put your username after comments, please Ukpcdaz 02:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Seaturtle.org will tell anyone that looks that Darren Grover is a registered sea turtle volunteer. The awards site does give historic winners, should you care to look. Additionally, a simple search on google will clear this matter further, since it was covered by national press. Moreover, My running a website for someone does not make me that person - otherwise, as a freelance web designer - I would be a LOT of people. Ukpcdaz 02:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Why do you wish so hard to remove a single page from the internet that causes you no harm? The page gives truthful statements about a noteable person, I don't see what is wrong with that. If everytime someone puts a new article on wikipedia, that a few people haven't heard of, so they try to delete it, there is NO point in wikipedia as it will be filled with only what a few people want/know, which will mean it will expand, but only in one direction. Ukpcdaz 02:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• On your website it says that I can contact Darren Grover at ukpcdaz@hotmail.com. Anything else? Fightindaman 02:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It makes the article no less true. Whilst you were on the site, did you care to note how many visitors it has had today? Last time I saw, it was 1007. 1007 visitors in one day, to a site of someone who is non-notable?Ukpcdaz 02:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Moreover, it does not say you can contact Darren Grover at that address. Ukpcdaz 03:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC) I can pass messages onto Darren Grover, that is all.

• Nope, I didn't see that anywhere. Not to mention, since you and Helzagood (who although a friend of Darren's doesn't know any of the other contributors) have both LIED significantly here you don't have a lot of credibility. Fightindaman 03:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Who has lied? Is it not feasible that someone can know Darren but not everyone else that might have heard of him? I doubt any celebrity can recall by name everyone that knows them, and nor could their fans recall all other fans. Nobody has lied, except you, to yourself - you can't admit that as you don't know of someone, they might be important. Ukpcdaz 03:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Additionally, Helzagood said she knew Darren, that does not imply friendship, get your facts right, before ATTACKING other users.

• When did Helzagood ever mention that she was a she? It seems you do know her. I am sure that there are plenty of people on wikipedia who are notable, but who I don't know of. You have simply listed nothing that makes you notable enough for an encyclopedia article. It's nothing personal, most people aren't notable. There's no need to act indignant or get angry. Fightindaman 03:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I am far from angry, I am merely insulted by your frightful rudeness. Helza, is a girls name, that is how I know it is a female, think before you speak. Ukpcdaz 03:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• I've never heard of it, and neither have the first few results for "name meaning" on Google. I don't really have anything else to say here so don't plan on getting another response. Fightindaman 03:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm sorry but re:"almost ran for council elections in 2004", an almost ran is not notable. Even less so than an also ran. Makemi 03:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Google is an American invention, do you genuinly expect to to encompass everything, including everything non-american? Good riddance, my-boy, people such as yourselves should not be made welcome on here, nor in society as a whole. Makemi, that is just one of Darren's many notable achievements. Ukpcdaz 03:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Deleted - Vanity page in which the author doesn't want anymore. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 04:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

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.