Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radcliffe Killam

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. John254 01:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radcliffe Killam

Memorial for NN individual. Seems like a generous and probably well-liked individual, but not notable Bellhalla (talk) 05:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, a director or involved with what looks like several notable organisations. I agree that the article reads like an obituary though, so it probably needs cleaning up. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 11:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Strong Keep. The third sentence of the article established notability: "In 1997, Worth magazine cited the Killam family as one of the largest landowners in the United States." I believe that only Dolph Briscoe, former governor of Uvalde, has more (or as much in) land holdings.65.116.31.254 (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the above anon IP seems to have a lot to do with articles created and/or maintained by this article’s main creator/contributor, Billy Hathorn (talk · contribs) — Bellhalla (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid Keep Unquestionably notable as he was a " member of the Oklahoma State Senate," which is one of our accepted guidelines. In spammy articles like this, perhaps nobody actually reads them through, but this was in the lede paragraph. I did get that far. DGG (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That was his father, O. W. Killam, who was an Oklahoma State Senator. And for clarity, that fact appears not in the lead, but in the first paragraph of the section entitled "Early years, education, military". — Bellhalla (talk) 04:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- There is certainly notability with plenty of sources, but the article needs some organization to it.Rigby27 (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2008 (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.