Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Bawden

: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 keep. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 11:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

=[[David Bawden]]=

:{{la|David Bawden}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Bawden Stats])

:({{Find sources|David Bawden}})

I've trimmed the article of POV uncited BLP content, added fact tags, etc. In the process of trying to turn up additional sources I've reached the conclusion that there do not appear to be significant reliable source coverage sources to establish notability, and hence have brought the article to AfD. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  • See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jennifer Shame/Archive. Blocked so far, besides a couple of IPs (note that the pope is not blocked):
  • {{user|Abuna1980}}
  • {{user|André Obrecht}}
  • {{user|Jennifer Shame}}
  • {{user|George Ahoy Today}}
  • {{user|Mumbai 115.249.115.244}}
  • {{user|Vlad-Transyllvania}}
  • {{user|PepponeDon}} Drmies (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
  • This page is about me and has been a very big problem, because of the numerous attacks made against me here and elsewhere. I can provide sourcing for everything pertinent about my life, if it is desired. But, if necessary, take it down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popemichael (talk • contribs) 00:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC) — Popemichael (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Technically, those would be meatpuppets.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I think that it should remain. However, I think that the policy of Wikipedia is not to have the individual concerned posting articles and citations about himself. Sources need to be verified independently. But I could be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlad-Transyllvania (talk • contribs) 06:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC) — Vlad-Transyllvania (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • I am accused of being a sockpuppet. I plead my innocence. To clarify; I do research on Catholic and Anglican cults and I conducted interviews with some people. My real name is Jennifer Shaw and I am originally from Salt Lake City. I am a LDS so I have no affiliation with either churches. One of the people who I interviewed (an American citizen) told me that David Bawden frequently makes use of such tactics i.e. pretends to be a victim, to attract attention to his group. This seems to be the case here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennifer Shame (talk • contribs) 07:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC) — Jennifer Shame (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Probably Delete -- The question is whether the subject is notable. He might be notable by being notorious, but he looks to me like one of many self-appointed superior clerics. We appear to be in a mirky world concerned with exposing cults. To me (as an evangelical Christian) the LDS are a cult. Some self-appointed clerics have an effective and useful ministry, probably including some fo the Orthodox Churches in America that established episcopacies, because they could not get appropriate appointments made by the European churches of which they claimed to derive from, which was in turn because they were under Communist domination. Others are mere fantasists (who are probably NN). A few are potentially dangerous, due to their ability to draw people under their control. My impression is that the subject belongs to the fantasy category, but I may be quite wrong. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. A simple search reveals several news articles and several book mentions, at least some of which are non-trivial coverage. I will try to add some sources in the next couple of days. StAnselm (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

:The [http://cjonline.com/stories/053005/kan_popemichael.shtml Associated Press article] is free and online - didn't anyone read that? StAnselm (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

::Sure, but that's really for the "man bites dog" section. Drmies (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep. The subject is notable, and has been covered in newspapers, a book and yes, there is an independent film made about this person. However, the article as it currently stands suffers from poor sourcing, major POV issues and is just poorly written. Apart from the poor sourcing, it seems most of these problems have occured in the past 2 weeks.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Probably Delete the article contains many inaccuracies. Is the subject a Pope, an antipope or a papal claimant? According to the Catholic Church, an antipope is someone who opposes the legitimate Pope and has a wide support. Six electors - including the subject - are hardly what one can consider a large following. Reliable statistics and information is needed. Seems that the subject has inputted information himself. Still, I am open to other suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PepponeDon (talk • contribs) 07:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC) — PepponeDon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Probably Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.249.115.244 (talk) 08:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Definitely Keep this person was targeted by vandals, possibly some of his adversaries (the former electorate?). If the article is deleted, Wikipedia would have succumbed to pressure from unreliable people. Keep so that a clear statement that such things will not be tolerated. User Popemichael, you have my support. You have the right to air your voice, whether we agree or not with it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Ahoy Today (talk • contribs) 08:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC) — George Ahoy Today (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep based on extensive news coverage going back years. The small Catholic splinter group the subject has established (numbering about 100 people, apparently) is also covered in standard reference books like Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions. Clearly satisfies WP:N, although the potential BLP and COI issues obviously need watching. -- 202.124.75.121 (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)— 202.124.75.121 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep the Article, if only to warn people that he exists and that he's a nut case who claims to be Pope. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep As long as it is not subject to alterations by David Bawden (username: Popemichael) or other supporters. Bawden himself deleted reference to the website of his former supporters and thus confirmed his (obvious) bias. I inserted it again and made some minor changes to the text as shown in the summary. Dislcaimer: I am not, nor have ever been, a supporter of David Bawden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papal Monitor (talk • contribs) 09:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

:Further to my previous comment, Wikipedia should monitor these IPs: 138.210.213.189 - calling Delia, Kansas (residence of David Bawden) and 115.249.115.244 - calling Mumbai, India (residence of L.M.* - major supporter of David Bawden). Could these also be considered as sockpuppets? *For privacy issue I indicated the initials of the person L.M., on the other hand David Bawden is a public figure so should be treated as such). Could also be that one of the residents in Bawden's home is making certain amendments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papal Monitor (talk • contribs) 09:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep - I'm sensitive to the concerns of the subject here, but I believe he has been the subject of enough coverage to pass our notability guideline, which means we should have an article. It's a somewhat borderline case, but besides the sources already in the article, other coverage in reliable sources includes [http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/oct/17/gospel-pope-michael-kansan-stakes-own-claim-cathol/],[http://www.ucanews.com/2012/03/01/on-film-the-strange-tale-of-pope-michael-i-of-kansas/] and [http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2012/02/29/todays-catholic-must-reads-290212/]. He seems to have had a feature-length documentary film made about him recently, which isn't conclusive of notability but certainly adds to the case for it. However, keeping this article should be contingent on being able to keep it relatively neutral, well-sourced and clear of vandalism. If we can't manage to do that, then we should think again about whether deletion might be a better solution. Robofish (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Well done Robofish. I love [http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2012/02/29/todays-catholic-must-reads-290212/ this note], about "a papal claimant who lives with his mother in Kansas." I'm sure that's completely factual and one could argue it's neutral. Drmies (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak keep indeed. There's two newspaper articles in all in the Google archives, and a couple of mentions in Google Books. He gets minimal coverage in [http://books.google.com/books?id=TzMOAQAAMAAJ&q=%22david+bawden%22+antipope&dq=%22david+bawden%22+antipope&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-l2cT7KNJoqO8wS4v-yfDw&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBA this encyclopedia], but at least he's mentioned. BTW, the pope is [http://books.google.com/books?id=CiImBJgYhXUC&pg=PA20 indeed an author], and not a very good one. I knew Kansas was weird, but I didn't know it was this weird. Drmies (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

:*Why doesn't it surprise me that the cover blurb for that book contains the phrase "New World Order", complete with capital letters? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

::*There are a lot of things here that don't surprise me. One of them is that being a crackpot and getting a bit of media coverage (mostly of the "man bites dog" variety) is probably enough to warrant notability by our standards. My "weak keep" is because of our guidelines, but if I had my way...Anyway, I look forward to Antipope on Twitter. Pope Michael, you should get on that. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep crackpot or not, the subject does seem to be getting coverage in reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:39, 29 April 2012 (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.