Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pebbles For People Foundation

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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pebbles For People Foundation and Martha Kavonavich

Because of the link to the Foundation's website (http://users.wpi.edu/~bcaff/pfpa) given in the article, I suspect that this is a joke. "pebbles for people foundation" returns no hits. If this is deleted, the article on its founder should be also. Ingoolemo ^talk 19:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Adding Martha Kavonavich, which also gets zero google hits. --Interiot 20:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Then clean out the spam links left in several other articles by the same anon. --StuffOfInterest 20:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and second the suggestion of StuffOfInterest. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 20:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The PFPA helps these poor children. I have not only been contacted by this group but donate annually.Kich164 21:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How does the webpage suggest it is a joke? It gives almost the same info as the article. That this is a helpful organization. Martha is a saint. His charity work has aided thousands. I try to give all I can to his group.JesusSaves 21:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- JesusSaves and Kich164 appear to be both created as sock puppets for the John Larney AfD (as briefly mentioned by the closing admin). User Bcaff took part in the John Larney AfD [1]. And now we're seeing sock puppets related to the site http://users.wpi.edu/~bcaff/. (also note that John Larney works for the Boy Scouts of Massachusetts [2], and user Bcaff uploaded this Massachusetts Scout badge that appears on the previous URL) Coincidence? --Interiot 21:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No one ever proved that we were "sock puppets" because we are not. Just because I don't spend all my time here doesn't make me a fake person. Tell me why this article should be deleted and we can debate it. All your reasons can be refuted because this is a real entity which helps people. Kich164 19:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I jusr got a call from these pebbles for people people. I decided to look it up here to see what it was about. They are most definatly real.He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named 01:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I voleteered for this program for a while. It is not a joke.TheBill 02:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above two also contributed to the John Larney AfD and were new at that time. --Interiot 03:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- So I voted on the Larney page? I wrote the article. I like the guy. Being experienced Wikiusers I bet some of you have voted on the same pages. TheBill 04:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - In the Larney AfD, there were only 6 new users who voted keep (Bcaff, He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named, JesusSaves, Kich164, Oa164, and TheBill). Of those, only Oa164 has so far failed to vote Keep here (excepting Bcaff, whose name is in the main URL of the article we're AfDing). --Interiot 15:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- After reviewing the contributions list above I see that some of the people you are attacking as "sock puppets" have gone on to write for wiki (admittedly not much as these people probobly don't spend all thier time here). They have gone on to write about what they know. This is a topic I know and therefore wished to share information with others who may be curious about the Foundation and what they do.Kich164 19:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as verified legitimate organisation. Also note the false claims of sock puppetry to influence vote towards delete. Always a good sign it should be kept. Zordrac 01:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's theoretically verifiable to some extent, though without even a phone number (they do solicit donations by phone) or address to verify them by, it's not even really technically verifiable. At this point, I really would like to physically verify this myself, even if it meant sending some money via credit card to confirm whose name actually shows up on it. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability:

"This is difficult to verify. Many spokespersons may have commented on the incident, and it's unreasonable to expect someone to check all these statements looking for the one that matches."

From an actual verifiability standpoint, there is absolutely zero internet presence of this organization outside of bcaff's page, and by all accounts, the name "Kavonavich" has never ever seen the Western world (I can't find the name in any nationwide white pages on the internet or even on sites like privateeye.com). And no, having a couple people show up and say they've heard of it doesn't count. Everyone should have the means to verify it themselves.

In terms of what the foundation donates, it's just as preposterous as it sounds [3]:

The Pebbles For People Foundation is a charity that donates the pebbles it collects to the needy children of Southeast Asia and Africa.

In terms of the logistical details of shipping rocks around the world, I mean, it's prerposterous to think that there's a shortage of rocks anywhere outside of the antarctic or on the surface of the ocean, it's preposterous to think that it's remotely economical to ship rocks any distance at all, and it's preposterous that a group would donate rocks instead of food or water. I can change my vote to BJAODN if need be, I can't possibly see how anyone can vote Keep on this with a straight face. --Interiot 03:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no such thing as the PFPA, it's a joke. Furthermore, Interiot, I don't appreciate you slandering me. Though the website cited is mine, I had nothing to do with the creation of this page, nor do I support its continued existance. Also, about the image I uploaded, that was part of the content for the article Old Colony Council. Do you have a problem with that? I'd appreciate if you'd cease with the animousity towards me. Bcaff 05:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I didn't need to / shouldn't have mentioned the non-AfD edits, and I wasn't trying to imply anything about the edits themselves. But I was being a bit of a dick in general, I'm sorry. --Interiot 06:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Apology accepted. Bcaff 11:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, as well as any other related articles anybody finds as an obvious joke. - Banyan Tree 22:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nominator. Stifle 22:49, 4 December 2005 (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.