This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus on an old vote started in April. FCYTravis 23:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete- Bart McQueary is all hype; an expert self promoter who's turned the non-issue that is his crusade into a newstory through irrelevant inflammation. His biggest accomplishment to date is being a part of a larger lawsuit by the ACLU against a Ten Commandments monument; but that's not even his claim to fame. His claim to fame is that he's a hanger-on to Fred Phelps; if McQueary gets a page here, then all 200-some-odd other members of Westboro, who participate in the exact same activity, also need entries.
This nomination was made by 184.108.40.206, who has made no edits not related to this nomination. Dsmdgold 19:38, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with someone adding entries for Margie Phelps, Shirley Phelps-Roper, Benjamin Phelps, Carl Hockenbarger, or anyone else associated with Fred Phelps for that matter.
Your reasoning seems to be that because he is a shameless self promoter that he is not deserving of an article discussing his rather interesting life.
Your argument does not hold water. 220.127.116.11 05:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This user has made no edits not related to this nomination. Dsmdgold 19:38, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
KEEP - Your reasoning for wanting the article deleted almost seems like some sort of personal hatred. There is no telling how far this guy is going to go and his life deserves to be documented in this tome of knowledge that is Wikipedia. If for no other reasons than what you have mentioned - he is what he is. For that matter, most of Hollywood is comprised of attention seekers. Not to mention Washington DC.
This is this user's first, and thus far, only edit. Dsmdgold 19:38, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Ok then. Do me a favor and go to Melsondorph the Powerful and vote to keep it based on the criteria you just mentioned (There is no telling how far this guy is going to go and his life deserves to be documented in this tome of knowledge that is Wikipedia. If for no other reasons than what you have mentioned - he is what he is).
By the way, what makes you think I hate McQueary?
Delete not notable, possible vanity Dsmdgold 19:38, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
This man hasn't made any sort of "mark" on the world, nor is it likely he ever will.
The reasons given to keep it are wrong for this very reason. If there is a page on this nobody, there should be a page on every other nobody that's out there.18.104.22.168 04:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong KEEP I personally do not like him nor Fred Phelps, nor their "religious organization", however thats not why we keep or delete articles on an encyclopedia. He is an important figure head for the "movement" and represents a portion of our society, which he is very notable for. We have to record good and bad topics, otherwise we are destined to repeat the same mistakes. <>Who?¿? 22:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong DELETE He's disappeared off the face of the Earth now, and what he did while he was around was nothing to write home about, except try to (unsucessfully) emulate Fred Phelps; and it's in serious debate whether or not he event meant what he said and did. If McQueary comes back out of whatever hole he disappeared into, and does something noteworthy, ACTUALLY NOTEWORTHY, then I wil be the first to put his article back on Wiki. Until then, he's just another wannabe; does every wannabe get a page? No one outside of Harrodsburg knows who this man is, and plenty of self-gratification articles have been deleted from Wiki before. What makes Bart so special? Mistergrind 23:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment whether or not a figure is still alive, or even around, is not an issue of noteworthiness. Even the people we cannot tolerate, are noteworthy to the thousands of people they influence, however, intolerance alone is yet, not an issue of encyclopedic value. <>Who?¿? 01:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Deleyte of course McQueary's "existance" as it were has no bearing on his status; Wiki is full of information on dead people. What matters, though, is that his barely noteworthy actions have apparently ceased. It may have been an excuse to keep the page going as long as he was still active, therefore prolonging the possibility that he may do something noteworthy, but now he's gone from the public eye, gone, it would seem, altogether, and he took with him any present hope of being a valid entry into Wiki. He has not affected "thousands" of people; it would be a long stretch to say that more than a few hundred people have ever been affected by him in any way, shape, or form. If McQueary is allowed to stay in Wiki, then entries must be made for every garage band that has performed at venues and has a webpage, for every independant filmmaker that has had their work shown at any festival, for every writer trying to submit their manuscript, for every person who has quarreled with the government or filed a lawsuit.22.214.171.124 22:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
For the sake of keeping with format, John Wilkes Booth is both dead, and his actions have definately ceased, but that one noteworthy action is very encyclopedic. Again, to one, a persons actions may not be noteworthy due to intolerance, that does not say it is not to another. Personally, NOT a supporter. <>Who?¿? 04:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment What is your obsession with changing my words around and trying to paint me as someone who wants McQueary deleted for intolerance? I have never stated that. One of my pride and joys on Wiki is the work I've done on the Fred Phelps page (another page you have made repeated attempts to sabotage). But the difference between a man who changed the course of history my murdering the leader of a country, and Bart McQueary, IS THAT HE HAS NOT DONE ANYTHING NOTEWORTHY AT ALL. There are people in every city in the USA standing on street corners with signs like McQueary's, preaching the same things as McQueary. Phelps belongs in the article because of his noteriety; he's been on CNN, worked with/for Al Gore, possibly was involved in a girl's death, has been the topic of a nationally read book, and, despite your fervent denial of it, leads a cult. McQueary is none of those things; he's a street-corner prophet. If McQueary is allowed to stay in, then I must insist that you restore another article of mine that you were instrumental in getting deleted, about a local band in Tulsa. They have the exact same level of noteriety as McQueary, and in the realm of music, have accomplished just as much as McQueary has in the realm of religion. Again, I say, if McQueary is allowed to stay in Wiki, then entries must be made for every garage band that has performed at venues and has a webpage, for every independant filmmaker that has had their work shown at any festival, for every writer trying to submit their manuscript, for every person who has quarreled with the government or filed a lawsuit.126.96.36.199 19:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Again, I don't feel this is the place for this type of conversation, however, you do not have a talk page, per say. I have no obsession with you nor this article. I do not mean to twist, contort, or demean your comments or vote. It "seemed" your comments were of a more personal nature, and I just wanted to stress the fact that we cannot delete articles we have personal feelings against, nor keep the ones we are in agreement with. With the little research I did on the topic of the article, it was easy to find many supporters and readers of this person. Whether or not there are "hundreds" or "thousands", it seemed he had quite a few followers and readers, with or without reguard to Fred Phelps. I fealt that the person was notable enough, for inclusion, on that basis alone. As far as your band, which I do not recall, or other garage bands. It is common not to include such bands, as they are very many, and notability seems to go hand-in-hand with recording status and the ability to cite references, other than blogs. I am no expert, I just do research to attempt to establish such, I am only one voice on Wiki. Please do not take my comments on article bias as a personal attack or reprimand, as I did not intend it that way. <>Who?¿? 19:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Seriously, who knows who this guy is other than the alleged terrified people of that redneck town he's plaguing? Seriously, who? (Unsigned comment)
Upon further review of the page, as well as the wikipedia deletion criteria, it is obvious that this page should be deleted- as it contains serious bias, and passive aggressive attitudes.
In terms that this guy is just sort of an interesting figure, and there are lots of people on wikipedia who are just so of strange tangenial figures without much real purpose or accomplishment. But he is just a cultist, and not every two bit nut gets his own webpage unless he makes it himself or herself.
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.