Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorian Baxter

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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 18:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dorian Baxter[edit]

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

A colourful character but hardly notable. Has run in a number of elections as a fringe candidate but never elected. Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN criteria. Recommend delete. Suttungr (talk) 11:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As archbishop of the Christ the King Graceland Independent Anglican Church of Canada as well as a key figure in the Progressive Canadian Party looks very notable to me. As a highly visible and constantly in the news, I'd say there are easily a good number of sources to support this. It would be detrimental to not have this article in the encyclopedia, given most people in central Ontario know of him. Outback the koala (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe this entry should be kept. The combination of the controversies with the Anglican Church and Children's Aid Society, his political activity (always a fringe candidate, but always popular and well-covered in the media), and his church work as the Rev. Elvis Priestly make him a high-profile enough figure to warrant inclusion. stantoro (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - referencing needs to be improved, but Google News clearly suggests sufficient coverage of various events over several years, meets WP:BASIC. Dl2000 (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple RS coverage means he meets the GNG. Use of an SNG which isn't even a central "claim to fame" for him is a pretty dubious reason for deletion, but I agree with the immediately prior !voter that the article could clearly stand to be improved. Jclemens (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs to be edited, but the fact that his is consistently and persistently a notable figure in the region, the politics and the press suggests he should be kept on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drclark (talk • contribs) 00:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2011 (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.