Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Griffiths

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. Per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Dusti^SPEAK!! 03:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Griffiths[edit]

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

Fails to meet the requirements of WP:BIO. Griffiths has been on a few local committees and appears most notable for failing to get elected in a federal election, being the son of someone rich and rich enough to own a hockey team. Unless he's so rich he's notable for being rich or a notably talented hockey team owner in the "field" of ownership, I see nothing here of sustaining historic and encyclopaedic notability. Ash (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the former owner of the Vancouver Canucks which is a top level professional hockey team, he is clearly notable. And with the many references on the page he meets WP:GNG and WP:V. There is no requirement that a person be talented to have an article, they must just be notable. Arthur Griffiths shows up in the national media very often as an NHL owner amongst other things. This is all that is required to meet the notability guidelines. Either way he has also been inducted into the British Columbia Hockey Hall of Fame which shows there is a talent. -DJSasso (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Would he be considered notable enough currently to meet WP:BIO? Possibly not. Would he have been considered notable enough a dozen years ago? Yes. Not only does notability does not expire, there's nothing about inherited wealth debarring one from it. Ravenswing 16:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry if the nomination seems anti-rich, just pointing out that being rich may indeed be a criteria for notability but probably not in Griffiths' case. Are you saying that it is sufficient to have run and failed to get a notable political position to be notable?—Ash (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think he is referring to his time owning a high level professional sports team through which he was often in the news nationally and internationally. He was household name in Canada for awhile. This isn't some low level failed politician. -DJSasso (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That was absolutely to what I was referring. Suggesting that I was saying that his political run was notable is not only a straw man argument, it of course runs foul of WP:POLITICIAN. Ravenswing 18:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are several distinct claims of notability here, and taken as a whole this person is clearly notable enough for an article. No problem with sourcing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a professional sports team owner, that alone should be enough to make him notable. While the article is obviously in poor shape, it does not stop him from being notable, and there is plenty written about him that could, and should, be used to improve the article. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs cleaning up but then again so does alot of the pedia. notable. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – In addition to the references in the article (reference 2 in particular offers substantial coverage), a Google News search in the 1990-99 archives shows a bunch of articles mentioning him. Included in these are a couple Toronto Star articles (pay-per-view) that appear to be focused on Griffiths on the first two pages. Judging from the intro I can view, one of them indicates that he was also involved with the formation of an NBA franchise, the former Vancouver Grizzlies. There should be more than enough there to show notability on top of what is already in the article. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 05:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above. Patken4 (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep - The weather outside is frightful -Pparazorback (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to satisfy WP:BIO, since notability never expires. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:34, 13 January 2010 (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.