Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Oosterman

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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William Oosterman

Vanity page Andyru 13:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect to Citywide Church. Powers 14:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

As I (William Oosterman)am no longer at Citywide both they and I would prefer that the bio is listed as seperate. It fits very well into the Canadian Clergy seciton. Andyru is a former Elder who resigned while at Westboro Baptist. If you check all his contributions he is on a campagin to discredit me and support Roy Lawrence the pedophile who snuck into our church under false pretenses and became Associate pastor, causing an incredible amount of damage. First Andyru posted a number of blatant lies about me on my page, now he is trying to have it removed. Take that into consideration during this "hearing". —This unsigned comment was added by Williamo1 (talk • contribs) .

If you are indeed Rev. Oosterman (and I have no reason to doubt that), your own edit history on this and related articles doesn't help your case, unfortunately. Be sure to read WP:VANITY, and you may want to reconsider contributing to articles about yourself and closely related organizations. Powers 15:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Williamo1, I think a basic problem you have to realize, is that when people who are not famous, make articles about themselves, the only people interested in those article are people who either personally love the person, or personally dislike the person (with exceptions of course). This is one reason why we strongly discourage people from writing bios of themselves, and generally discourage articles on most regular people (or "non-notable" to use our lingo). I'm sure you don't like some of the stuff written about you. But, you can't, and won't be able to control it. Unsourced negative statements about you can be removed, but if somebody puts relevant sourced verifiable facts (or notable opinions), which aren't favorable to you, then you might have to live with that. You should seriously consider supporting deletion, and remove the problem. This is not your personal page, and it can never be what you wanted it to be. A better option would be to go make your own personal web page, at one of many web hosts (free or non-free). Then you can say anything you want, talk openly about your beleifs, and not have critics edit the page. Surely, that's what you truly want. --Rob 16:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Vanity article, apparently begun by Mr Oosterman himself (Ecclesiastes 1:2 springs irresistibly to mind). More importantly, it does not demonstrate the notability of its subject. Oosterman's latest book gets a grand total of 12 hits on Google [1]; his other book, Out of the Gutter, gets four hits[2], of which three direct to non-working links and the fourth...er... comes back to this Wikipedia article. I cannot find evidence of Oosterman's national notability. The "achievements" of speaking at conferences, preaching in foreign churches and "being involved in campaigns" are not what I would describe as notability; ditto the directorship of a non-notable lobby group. And the Google test? Well, a search for "william oosterman" achieves just 76 unique Google hits [3] (my local vicar gets 321). So far as the "college professor" test of WP:BIO is concerned, Oosterman doesn't even appear to be a blip on the radar. Humansdorpie 16:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable bio. Bucketsofg 16:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Week Delete as being vanity. Although, I might tolerate a new article in the future, by a neutral person. I would love to say Oosterman is totally non-notable. However, he does admittedly have minor notability. He is a minor author, he writes a little piece in a local paper on religion (or he did at one time), he's been quoted for his anti gay mariage views, and his effot to stop women baptist preachers, and given attention because his church had the same name as a more famous one. So, I could see neutral person making this article (if they provided reliable sources to the stuff I just mentioned). But, that's not happened. This article, at this time, is just being used for promotion and/or criticism. Maybe if/when he's more well known, somebody independent will write something. But, this is a tough call, and a fair arguement can go either way. --Rob 16:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If he becomes notable, I think you can take it as read that someone will write an article about him. Notable people dont need to write their own. Marcus22 17:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity article. Skeezix1000 17:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 17:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete...vanity, non-notable. KHM03 (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: A semi-related discussion is Citywide Church (AfD discussion) (named "Westboro" in article). --Rob 00:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn bio. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep or Merge I fear that Oosterman is notable. Google shows reference to him from a number of third party sources. However noxious his views, he has had an impact on the wider stage and Wikipedia should recognize this. However this article is clearly POV in its current state and at least needs tagging for a major rewrite. Gwernol 00:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO as stated above. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity article of a nn subject. Eusebeus 17:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable (note that I have a slight conflict here because I'm currently in an RfC with William). JoshuaZ 06:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom; being quoted once, even in the national press, does not suddenly vault one into the status of notable, or else there would be too many "notable" people to write articles on.(—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Derekwriter (talk • contribs).)
• Delete as vanity. Durova 16:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. — Mar. 29, '06 [06:53] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

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.