Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Henry Baber

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 no consensus. Or "nomination withdrawn". One !vote to keep, three "no recommendation". (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Henry Baber[edit]

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

The article asserts no notability of the person in question, and a cursory Google search reveals nothing of interest. KaySL (talk) 15:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The claim to notability asserted in this article is inaccurate. Baber was not the first member of the Green Party elected to office, or even the first member elected in the U.S., or even the first member elected a mayor in the U.S. (The first Green Party mayor in the U.S. was elected in 1991 [1]; Baber wasn't elected until 2004.) In fact, at the time he was elected, his party (the Mountain Party) had not yet affiliated with the Green Party. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No recommendation at this time. The article has been changed significantly and so my previous recommendation is no longer applicable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I expanded the article and added references. - Eastmain (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Not noteable. Way too short to keep. No major edits in a few weeks.--MWOAP (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Article was cleaned up & referenced. But still might be notability issues. --MWOAP (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Well, some more references and content have been added to the article in question. Whether or not subject notability is established is another matter, however. At this time, I'd change my general opinion to no recommendation, per Metropolitan90. KaySL (talk) 15:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2010 (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.