Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Hasleby

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 keep. Johnleemk | Talk 06:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Hasleby

This article does not demonstrate the notability of its subject. JDoorjam 02:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. PJM 02:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Statement of notability now added. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 02:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and block nominator for violation of WP:POINT, as these obvious follow on from the failing AfD of John Warren (convict), which has a clear plurality to keep. Ambi 02:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think they're notable articles, and having stumbled across a hive of them, nominated several for deletion. JDoorjam 03:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You knew they were unlikely to succeed, however, and nominating these just wastes everyone's time. That's called disrupting to make a point. Ambi 03:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sarah Ewart 03:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no more notable than John Warren. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ambi -- Ian ≡ talk 03:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ambi. Bduke 03:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Put contents into a broader article if possible, delete otherwise, per my comments on John Warren. enochlau (talk) 06:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, being a ex-convict schoolteacher is non-notable, even if it was rare. Plus, 39 of the 9721 convicts actually became schoolteachers, so it is not even that rare. Given the number of people with the job of schoolteacher in the general population, that does not seem like a rate all the different than non-convicts. If the book is notable, an article should be written on it instead. -- Kjkolb 12:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, important part of Australian history. -Colin Kimbrell 15:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just another ex-convict, just another schoolteacher.--Ezeu 15:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you think about it, is anyone really that notable? Lleyton Hewitt is just another tennis player, Tom Cruise is just another actor, etc. Keep as per Ambi. Rogerthat 11:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Tom Cruise is just another bad actor. Sven Larsson is also another bad actor. But Tom Cruise is notable, whereas Sven Larsson is a dude who plays Joseph in the annual Christmas play at my community centre. Sven Larsson is a teacher, and it wouldn't surprise me if he is an ex-convict as well. --Ezeu 23:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Longhair 03:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is the same issue as John Warren (convict)--A Y Arktos 08:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable as that John Warren guy. Grue 17:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is great history and exactly what we need more of here. -- JJay 15:14, 21 January 2006 (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.