Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pat Broeker
 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2012 February 16. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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, without prejudice to reliably-sourced mentions elsewhere, whereupon history undeletion and redirect may be appropriate. Despite verifiable sources, the consensus below determines that the subject simply is not notable enough for an article (failing WP:N). This is a determination within the prerogative of any AfD. Xoloz 14:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More ScientologyCruft, fails WP:BIO. The entire basis for this person's claim to notability (that he was supposedly L. Ron Hubbard's chosen successor but got screwed out of it) comes only from rumours and gossip from an anti-Scn personal page (xenu.net) and a book by Hubbard Jr. whose own article says he retracted and redacted his claims in that book. Gets only 250 unique Ghits and not all of those are even this same person. wikipediatrix 19:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree about deletion. (sidenote: retraction does not mean much since they're usually parts of confidential agreements most certainly involving money. At best they are as dubious as some claims) --Leocomix 23:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- DeWolfe's last retraction (of at least two) was tied to a settlement from the estate of L. Ron Hubbard. AndroidCat 05:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree about deletion. (sidenote: retraction does not mean much since they're usually parts of confidential agreements most certainly involving money. At best they are as dubious as some claims) --Leocomix 23:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to me that you could look at that two ways: He retracted a true statement for money, or under pressure. Or he made a false claim in the first place looking for a settlement. Steve Dufour 16:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think I've assembled enough good references to build a minor article. The main problem with Pat Broeker is that he is "the curious incident of the dog in the night-time". He is mainly notable for what he didn't do: He wasn't seen for years because he was in hiding with LRH. He didn't assume a leadership position because David Miscaviage did. As an alternative to keep, the hard-ref'ed pieces could be merged with L. Ron Hubbard, and David Miscavage, as succession questions in starting religions tend to be
turbulentnotable, but then those pieces would mention a Pat Broeker who didn't have an article... AndroidCat 05:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The Time and Forbes articles only mention him in passing. Not enough information for an article. He should be mentioned in other articles on Hubbard and Scientology however. Steve Dufour 15:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep a notable role in history of the movement. DGG (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The only problem with that is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the general public, not "the movement." Steve Dufour 00:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per nom.HubcapD 06:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ""Delete"" This article will probably never be more than a stub about a non-notable person. S. M. Sullivan 02:20, 17 August 2007 (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.