Talk:David Gaiman/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Arbitrary section heading

Does he really warrant his own page ? -- Beardo 22:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hell yeah. He was pretty much the public voice of Scientology in the UK in the 1960s. I'm expanding this article as I go - David Gerard 20:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I remember having seen David Gaiman on a document about Operation Cat. It is briefly mentioned here [1]. It was mentioned on a german show about the activities of David Gaiman in Russia a few years ago, to show his dark past :) --Tilman 21:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Neil Gaiman?

There is a request at the BLP noticeboard, stating that Neil Gaiman has no relation to the subject of this article. As there is no source provided to assert that relationship, I have removed it as per WP:BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What about this? [2] --Tilman 21:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I have added the citation, but removed the wikilink, as we cannot be sure per that particular citation which Neil Gaiman it refers to. Smee.
  • Hrm, upon further inspection, the article from The Times states that the boy "Neil Gaiman" in the article was at the time 7 years old in August 1968, which would jive exactly with Gaiman's birth of November 1960 ... Smee 23:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
    • Sir Foster's sources in Enquiry into the Practice and Effects of Scientology confirm this as well... Smee 07:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
  • There was a recent photo published of Neil with his parents. The father sure looked like this David Gaiman ... - David Gerard 06:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure that you'll find references that he is that Neil Gaiman. Keep in mind, however, that this may be an extremely sensitive family issue for him—which he has previously declined to discuss. (Publically leaving is seen as a crime by a Suppressive Person leading to disconnection. If someone is out on the quiet, they might be doing a careful balancing act with the church and family members who are still in.) AndroidCat 14:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As it is accepted oon the above discussion that there is no evidence that the Neil Gaiman in the supposed article is fantasy author neil gaiman, the line referenceing his son as being a famous fantasy author must be removed.

Eh? Magic Pickle 00:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Notable?

Private person. Minor businessman. Ex-CoS exec. Shows up in some courts docs. Not charged? How is he notable? Please prove notability as other than his name appearing in a little bit of press appearing as a PR person. The rest of the article is manufactured "notability" out of the details of a private person's life. --Justanother 03:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see comment by User:David Gerard above: Hell yeah. He was pretty much the public voice of Scientology in the UK in the 1960s. I'm expanding this article as I go Yours, Smee 03:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
    • OK, so was a PR flack. Still not notable. This one is not even close! This is a private person. He does not need an article here. --Justanother 03:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
      • There are plenty of verifiable sources, and the individual was a key historical figure, as stated by others above. Consensus is against you on this. Smee 04:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
I think he is notable so I am removing the tag. Vivaldi (talk) 04:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
That sounds weird. Usually tags are left in place pending some discussion, maybe an RfC. --Justanother 04:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Nobody has a duty to leave another's tags up, especially if they feel they are totally inappropriate and unsupported by evidence. If the consensus of editors think the tag is deserved then it can be put back in. I doubt you'll find a consensus that agrees with you, but you are certainly willing to try to develop one. I'd like to see some coherent argument from you that justifies this tags inclusion. Vivaldi (talk) 07:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Not if consensus is in the other direction. It is similar to a prod. One user can add one, but another user, other than the creator of the article usually, can remove it. Then the next step is AFD. Smee 05:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
    • No, Smee, AfD is not the next step, at least for me. There are other steps I would take first as I do not lightly AfD articles as can clearly be seen in both my edit history and my current AfD. But I will support it if another editor cares to be WP:BOLD and AfD this one. And if they want my input in a sandbox AfD nom statement I will help. --Justanother 14:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

He was also involved in Operation Snowwhite ("Operation Cat"), he cashes big from the scientology vitamin ideology (G+G), and he had an involvement in Russia for scientology. There's a TV interview with him about this. --Tilman 06:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Note

I am taking this page off of my watchlist. Will someone please notify me on my talk page - if it goes up for AFD, and/or other major changes? Thanks. Smee 05:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

  • Add me to the "hell yes" list. After L. Ron Hubbard, he was easily the most prominent Scientologist in the UK during the 1960s and 1970s. He played a key role in the attempt to take over the NAMH, which is the subject of an entire book (see Believe What You Like). There's lots more material that could be added to this aericle. -- ChrisO 10:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who says Gaiman is not a prominent figure in the cult either knows very little about Scientology (in which case why are they here?) or more likely, is part of the David Gaiman PR machine. (TTJ)