Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Keith Gray

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 Nymf and Bearcat, deleted article and restored starting at Canuckle's blank/rewrite of entire article. Tawker (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Keith Gray[edit]

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

Article was requested as a speedy G5 (banned/blocked user) - with that being said subject may be notable and article may be worthy of a keep. Tawker (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. It is not of interest if the subject is notable or not. If someone wants to create an article on the subject in question, they need to do so independently of the sockpuppet. Nymf (talk) 05:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of deleting a banned editor's contributions isn't really a question of notability — but rather a question of withholding attribution of authorship from the banned user. And it's worth remembering, as well, that a deletion discussion is not a permanent ban on the subject ever having an article; an article that's been deleted in the past can be recreated if the notability claim and the existence of valid sourcing change. And in a case such as this, if you believe that the subject is sufficiently notable, you also have the option of copying the text, deleting the page to eliminate the banned user's author credit, and then immediately recreating the page so that you're the new "original" author instead. That said, this article, as currently written, is "referenced" only to a dead link on a site that wouldn't count as a sufficiently reliable source anyway — so his basic notability hasn't actually been properly demonstrated in the first place. Delete; no prejudice against recreation by somebody else if some actual sourcing can be added. Due to Canuckle's improvements, keep the article, but delete the banned editor's edits from its history. Bearcat (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep recreated version with actual sourcing. I have no linkage to this subject topic or creator Canuckle (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is much better, and I'm willing to withdraw the part of my above comment that pertains to the lack of sourcing. However, we still have the problem of original authorship being attributed to a banned user. Is there a way we can resolve that issue without crapping on Canuckle's fine salvage work? Bearcat (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is possible to completely blank the edit history prior to Canuckle's edit (just like they do with vandals sometimes). Nymf (talk) 07:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Let's do that. Bearcat (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica ₵ 01:54, 10 April 2014 (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.