Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Watson

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 redirect to Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 01:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Watson

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

This was PRODded, but it's been around since 2005, and aside from major issues such as copyvios, I really don't think articles that have lasted this long ought to be deleted without a discussion.

The original prod rationale was fails to meet notability guidelines, and someone seconded the motion with an additional statement of WP:BLP1E applies here. Watson's sole basis for fleeting notability is his involvement with the ratification of the Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, to which this article should redirect. With a standalone article, it's been a WP:COATRACK for Watson himself to continually add material about himself, regardless of its lack importance to to Wikipedia readers.

Aside from strongly supporting the use of a deletion discussion here, rather than PROD, I am neutral. Nyttend (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 21:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 21:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 21:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 21:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. If the article as it stands is accurate, and I don't see any reason to doubt it, then he is the person principally responsible for obtaining the ratification of the 27th Amendment. I don't think that is minor or "fleeting". HIs subsequent activities show ongoing involvement in constitutional amendment ratification issues. Kestenbaum (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, where there ought to be a short but substantive section about Watson. There are stories about his role, however, As a stand-alone article, I think it as per WP:1E the best disposition merge.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Parsley Man (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. This is a classic WP:ONEEVENT. The sole claim to notability is Watson's discovery while doing research in college that the Amendment was hanging out there in ratification limbo and starting a grassroots effort to ratify it. Everything else in the article is frosting. It's been used as a WP:COATRACK by Watson to aggrandize himself (about a third of the edits to the article are by Watson himself, most of them reverting the work of other editors to keep his preferred text in place, though he's cut back on that recently, having driven away those other editors), adding a paragraph every time his name gets mentioned somewhere, and violating both WP:COI and WP:OWN when anyone tries to trim it. It's probably worth 1 to 3 sentences in the article on the amendment (and that's already there), but nothing more.

Disclosure, I'm the editor referred to by Nyttend above as seconding the PROD; the PROD itself was instituted by Notoftroy. In retrospect, redirection is a better disposition than deletion, so hat-tip to Nyttend for that. TJRC (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. I would say merge, but the material is already there. The remainder of the article consists of two types of things - contacting states about symbolically ratifying amendments that already were in force, and being mentioned by government people regarding the 27th amendment. Both are too trivial to warrant mention in the articles on the relevant amendments or anywhere else I can think of. Egsan Bacon (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution as it seems he's best connected to that. SwisterTwister talk 20:56, 16 February 2016 (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.