Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross Boggs

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. Through the close might be controversial as OSUHEY made several legal threats, the article has no problem like copyright, so I am closing this discussion. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 07:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Boggs[edit]

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

Procedural nomination per a contested G5 deletion. Article was created by banned user OSUHEY, and every significant edit to this article was made by him, or one of his socks. I am Neutral. FASTILY_s ^(TALK) 21:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - OSUHEY is a banned and blocked plagiarizer/sockpuppet. He has also made several legal threats and even contacted me under the pseudonym Senator-emeritus Jim Finke. Marcus Qwertyus 21:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Person is notable per WP:POLITICIAN, reliable sources, and common sense, despite the status of the user who created this innocuous stub, which ought to be expanded rather than deleted. In an article about an Ohio political scandal published today, the Toledo Blade wrote, "In 1997, Ross Boggs, then the highest-ranking Democrat in the Ohio House, predicted that Mr. Voinovich and the Republican leadership would pay a steep price for the takeover and politicization of the bureau" here. The article includes a photo of Ross Boggs, who is indisputably notable and remains in the news after his retirement. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is nothing wrong with the article and deleting it would do nothing to benefit the encyclopedia. The subject is clearly notable and the article passes all policies. One concern is that the original creator persistently violated copyright but I can't believe this two sentence stub is a copyright violation (even if the content meets the threshold of originality for copyright protection). Editors may revert edits made by banned users, but they are not required to do so. I should point out that OSUHEY was not banned at the time he wrote the article, merely indefinitely blocked (he was only banned as a result of this discussion in August 2011). Hut 8.5 22:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it is a very bad idea to nominate articles such as this for deletion. Wikipedia would be incomplete without biographies about subjects such as this, and there is no inappropriate content. Peacock (talk) 17:23, 10 October 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.