Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Veley (2nd nomination)

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. being a shit article isn't a reason for deletion if it can be saved Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Veley

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

WP:ONEEVENT. Doesn't seem to have much notability aside of his record. Needs additional citations for verification. Was deleted back in 2005, but recreated. Probably should be SALTed this time. p b p 21:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, This man is a prominent member of a community of dedicated travelers. Reasonably noteworthy.Vincent (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent/Vfp15 was the article's creator

Have you any evidence that there are enough reliable sources for him to pass WP:GNG, or that he has any significance beyond his been-to-a-lot-of-places record (WP:ONEEVENT) p b p 16:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: With the sole nomination criterion being ONEEVENT, I advocate Keep. There are numerous sources that satisfy the GNG [1]. From nothing more than clicking the "news" button listed on this AfD, I see articles in the New York Times, Forbes, the Toronto Star and the Telegraph -- all of them major news sources, all of them discussing the subject in significant detail. This provokes serious doubt that the nom bothered with even the most cursory of searches for sources, as WP:BEFORE enjoins one to do before filing an AfD. That being said, ONEEVENT pretty much means "one event," and the fellow's notability doesn't stem from a single incident; it's from what he's done over the course of many years. You could, with as much accuracy and as much fidelity to the guideline, claim that a professional hockey player of long standing has no notability beyond sports. Ravenswing 07:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Watch it, bud. BEFORE isn't, and never will, be mandatory. It is not the AfD nominator's job to fix underreferenced BLPs p b p 15:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Err ... rather uncivil there, for someone with so many civility/diplomatic-based barnstars prominently displayed on your talk page? In any event, WP:BEFORE's language is studded with phrases such as "The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search ... Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform," "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD," "If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page," "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination," and so on. No, boasting that you don't bother with WP:BEFORE isn't grounds for a speedy close of an AfD, but longstanding consensus holds that it's expected of nominators. Ravenswing 18:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's knock this urban myth that WP:BEFORE is not required on the head. Deletion policy says that the relevant reasons for deletion are "articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" and "articles whose subjects [my emphasis] fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)", not "articles which don't currently contain reliable sources to verify them" and "articles whose current content fails to demonstrate that they to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)". This is policy, and so it is required for deletion nominators to address those points. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete and purge related content from Travelers' Century Club. None of the content appears to be genuinely independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Toronto Star, Forbes Magazine, New York Times and the Daily Telegraph aren't independent? Ravenswing 02:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only ref in the article is an interview-based one with no evidence of independent research; thus not independent. The claims of articles above are WP:GHITS. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Err ... you're badly misconstruing WP:IRS. The definition of an "independent" source is whether it's independent of the subject, not based on your private opinion on whether the writer did his homework or not. As far as your curious invocation of WP:GHITS, what is that supposed to mean? Are you stating that the Toronto Star, New York Times, Forbes and Daily Telegraph pieces don't exist? There's no need for you to take my word for it -- look at the links yourself. If what you mean by it is that you don't feel you should have to look at any of the evidence before registering your opinion ... well, that's a common enough syndrome at AfD to be unremarkable. Ravenswing 06:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, based on above identified sources. Basically a lack of WP:BEFORE, as the same nominator admitted. Cavarrone 06:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until a proper article is written. This article is shit. But there are plenty of sources to justify notability, such as those mentioned above and Ken Jennings' book Maphead. The thing is, this is a crappy article about a BLP, and it should be deleted unless editors are willing to maintain it properly. If it keeps coming back to AFD, that's a sign that editors are not willing to maintain it. Gamaliel (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2013 (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.