Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elmer Knutson

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. I think there is some confusion her wrt the two meanings of the term "sources". What we use to cite information in articles is one meaning. What we use to demonstrate "notability" is the other. It's the second meaning that is important when deciding whether or not a subject is notable in an AFD which is why I like to call them supersources. A supersource is an instance of someone "taking note of" a subject and it's only necessary for multiple supersources to exist. They don't necessarily have to be in the article and in some cases they may not even be useful for citing anything in the article. Yes it would be helpful if they were integrated into the article somehow (external links or "further reading") but it's not required Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elmer Knutson[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Does not cite any sources. West Eddy (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was never elected, but he seems to have been well known as an activist and advocate for Alberta/Western Canada separation. This is just a handful of the articles I found in a news archive search. (I will use them to help improve the article over the next few days; I can't do it immediately.) Dawn Bard (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Sun [1]
The Leader-Post (Regina) [2][3]
Edmonton Journal [4][5]
Calgary Herald [6]
Montreal Gazette [7]
The Western Standard [8]
Ottawa Citizen [9]

If those can be incorporated to show notability, I will support keeping it. West Eddy (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic passes WP:GNG. These sources have been added to the article:

"Elmer Knutson Risks his Credibility". The Vancouver Sun. January 22, 1981. Retrieved April 27, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Convention Often Resembled Theatre of the Absurd". Ottawa Citizen. July 19, 1982. Retrieved April 27, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Elmer's Tune?". The Leader-Post. June 16, 1984. Retrieved April 27, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Knutson Laughing Off Rumors on Resignation". Edmonton Journal. June 12, 1985. Retrieved April 27, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Knutson-Nickle Attack Sways Big B.C. Crowd". Edmonton Journal. January 9, 1981. Retrieved April 27, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Wischnewski, Nino (January 8, 1981). "West-Fed Plans Using $4 Million". The Calgary Herald. Retrieved April 27, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Separatism in the West: How Far Does it Really Go?". The Montreal Gazette. March 20, 1980. Retrieved April 27, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"The Alberta separatist movement that wasn't". Western Standard. 2009-05-09. Retrieved 2012-04-27. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With sources added, I don't object to keeping it. West Eddy (talk) 05:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable biography. Stormbay (talk) 01:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The references should be integrated into the article as footnotes rather than simply being listed under the heading "references". However, I would have to agree that Knutson passes WP:GNG much more handily than some of the other political party leaders who are also currently up for debate; even without electoral success he's been a prominent activist who's garnered considerable media attention in his own right — unlike most of the others, I merely had to see Elmer Knutson's name to know exactly who was under discussion, without even having to look at the article to find out. And the fact that some good references have actually been added to the article, even if additional formatting cleanup is still needed, means that I don't need to go into my standard rant about how notability is a question of sources and not of simply asserting proclamations of "all X are notable" entitlement, nor cast my conditional "keep or redirect depending on the state of the article at close" vote. Clean keep. Bearcat (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Can this AFD be closed as withdrawn by the nominator, given West Eddy's comment above? Dawn Bard (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't withdrawn my nomination. I said I would if the sources were incorporated into the article -- not if they were tacked on to the end. Simply adding references that may or may not relate to the content does not help the article. West Eddy (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTCLEANUP: AfD is not for clean-up. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:21, 2 May 2012 (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.