Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Rock Ranger

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 Delete. The "keep" commenters have failed to effectively counter the arguments of either the nomination (regardless of the bad or good faith behind it) or the "delete" commenters. Ironholds (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs work like so. The nominator turns up with a reason for deletion. "delete" commentators turn up and either include their own reasons, or agree with his. "keep" commentators turn up and either fix the issues that the first two groups have raised, or, if they feel the issues are irrelevant (or simply don't exist), argue this out. In either case, the onus is on the "keep" side to rebut deletion arguments or prove them false due to the method of opening the debate with a nomination for deletion. User:Justfred opens up with critiquing the nominator's motives rather than his argument, ending with "notability guideline (WP:N appears satisfied" without giving any evidence to that effect. FuturePrefect makes a similar argument, also weighing in with the idea that Burning Man's overarching notability gives subsidiary articles notability. BabbaQ provides even less, simply saying that the nominator's claims are unfounded.

The awkward element, of course, is that at least one of the delete comments (User:Abductive) is similarly useless - arguably two. Abductive simply leaves a vote, and AfD is not a vote. Because of that, I would ask everyone involved (with the exception of Alzarian16, who actually provided a decent argument) to bear in mind in the future that their comments will only be taken into account if they're proper, policy-citing, logically argued comments. Admins do not care about the heat or emotion behind your edits here. That does not influence our decisions. What does influence our decisions is the strength behind the edits. Ironholds (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Black Rock Ranger

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not even remotely approach notability guidelines; Vain, self-aggrandizing and a waste of Wikipedia resources. zippogeek (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As expressed on the talk page, complainant zippogeek appears to have personal issues with the subject. It is otherwise a worthwhile article. notability guideline (WP:N appears satisfied.--Justfred (talk) 06:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reasons for this AfD are unfounded. The complaints mentioned by zippogeek (talk) do not warrant deletion and no one, including Zippogeek, has made an effort (article edits or talk page discussion) to improve the article by fixing the alleged problems (WP:N & WP:NPV). Given the time stamp of this AfD, Zippogeek's notice of deletion talk page, and the negative words he shared, I believe this AfD is not taken seriously, and we're working with an internet troll. As Justfred (talk) mentioned, I also believe that WP:N is satisfied, WP:DEL is not satisfied, and Burning man's sustained notability weigh's in favor for Black Rock Ranger. -- FuturePrefect (talk) 02:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Dont see the reason for putting this up for an Afd at all. The reasons for this AfD are non-existing.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As an uninvolved editor just passing by, I agree that the nominator's violent comment on the talk page calls his motives into some question. However, the article is unreferenced, and a Google search reveals a lack of hits that are not to the Burning Man page and other wikis. Not sure we really need an unreferenced article on the security team for an annual event and suggest we think about a merge into Burning Man. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The notability of this group is questionable, but this does appear to be a bad-faith nomination. I think I'll tell the nominator on his/her talk page that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid criterion for deletion. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 12:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article appears to be a verbatim copy of the burning man's site on the black rock rangers. No matter how notable the subject may or may not be, this article can't be kept as it is. -- Mecanismo | Talk
Delete. Basically a steward at a festival. Non-notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite the bad faith nomination, this would actually appear to fail WP:GNG. The only reliable independent coverage I could find was a few one-sentence mentions in news reports and books. Add in the possible copyright problems mentioned by Mecanismo and deletion looks like the right option. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Burning Man. Abductive (reasoning) 09:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[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.