Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Smathers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Cbrown1023 talk 22:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick Smathers[edit]
- Patrick Smathers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Subject of article does not meet the criteria for notability per WP:BIO. No independent secondary sources. Nv8200p talk 05:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He has lots of hits under "Pat Smathers" including a full biography in the Mountaineer of Waynesville, NC of June 26, 2006 available from Highbeam. Please attempt to do some research instead of just the nominating. It takes more time but saves us all time. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He is fairly notable, somehow I've already heard of him and I'm in Australia. I get the sense he will become very important in the future, perhaps affecting the lives of everyone on this planet.WunNation 12:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -Nv8200p talk 13:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment since posting the above, User:WunNation has been indefinitely blocked as a single purpose trolling account. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- strong keep - explain how he fails WP:BIO? If you want to complain that it's a partisan article that needs to be tagged for WP:NPOV cleanup then you've got that right, but don't tell me that a mayor running for Lt. Gov doesn't receive significant press coverage. I spent 5 minutes looking and found a photo of him touring a flood site with Sen. Mrs. Dole, on her own webpage. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google and Yahoo! bring up at least 10 very good secondary sources. For the rest, as per AllGloryToTheHypnotoad. Poeloq 08:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't find these very good secondary sources. Why don't you add them to the article so they can undergo peer review? -Nv8200p talk 11:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope he reads this and comes back to do so. Can you state, btw, what specifically you will want to review in these sources? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That the sources seem to be independent from the subject and from reliable established media. That the information in the sources support what is written in the article. -Nv8200p talk 16:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you put a "fact" tag on those pieces of information in the article which you feel are unsupported at present, so we see what the specific problems are that we need to address? E.g., do you feel it's unsupported that he's a mayor, that he's (not officially, apparently) running for Lt. Gov., that he graduated from Duke, that he works as an attorney, etc.? If all you want is general proof of mentions in the press, try these: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Great. Why don't you put the references in the article instead of here because the article has to assert his notability not the article for deletion. And the blog doesn't count. -Nv8200p talk 01:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No. I'm not interested. As far as I'm concerned, those 6 links demonstrate notability, you seem to be the only one here who doesn't think so, and since I've seen far more notable topics get deleted and far more important topics remaining here with ZERO attribution in the article I think it's a waste of my time to try to improve an article to a by-the-book standard that nobody here actually cares about. I don't waste 30 seconds of time on improving a contested article, because the article often gets canned anyway because of a few people who refuse to work to consensus. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Great. Why don't you put the references in the article instead of here because the article has to assert his notability not the article for deletion. And the blog doesn't count. -Nv8200p talk 01:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you put a "fact" tag on those pieces of information in the article which you feel are unsupported at present, so we see what the specific problems are that we need to address? E.g., do you feel it's unsupported that he's a mayor, that he's (not officially, apparently) running for Lt. Gov., that he graduated from Duke, that he works as an attorney, etc.? If all you want is general proof of mentions in the press, try these: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That the sources seem to be independent from the subject and from reliable established media. That the information in the sources support what is written in the article. -Nv8200p talk 16:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope he reads this and comes back to do so. Can you state, btw, what specifically you will want to review in these sources? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't find these very good secondary sources. Why don't you add them to the article so they can undergo peer review? -Nv8200p talk 11:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Bryant 23:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per AllGloryToTheHypnotoad, and the fact that it passes WP:BIO. Sr13 (T|C) 23:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, passes WP:BIO. If there are concerns that add an {{politician-stub}} notation or fix the article. It does not need to be deleted. meshach 00:52, 7 April 2007 (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.