Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Colbran

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Delete. If he is elected in 2010, a new article can be written then but at this point he doesn't appear to be over the bar of WP:BIO#Politicians. Sarah 02:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Colbran[edit]

George Colbran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Failed election candidate with no other notability. It had a prod template which was removed, with the editor citing "his business and how powerful he is". Owning a business in Townsville doesn't establish notability as far as I'm concerned Frickeg (talk) 06:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - having read the entire article, I can honestly say there is nothing that gives him noteability. Timeshift (talk) 06:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. His business/political activity is not notable enough. Jmount (talk) 07:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with Timeshift9 - I too have read the article and can not see how he meets WP:Bio - specifically WP:BIO#Politicians states Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I don't see the refs as being "significant coverage" and taking this article above the notability threshhold required. --Matilda talk 07:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep WP:Bio says a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The multiple newspapers and broadcast references I feel are worthy. In addition, A person is generally notable if they have received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. The Order of Australia is certainly within this criteria as well. The fact that his political career failed does not mean that Mr. Colbran is strictly held within the bounds of the WP Bio Politicians criteria. Addionne (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that were true then we'd have kept Corey Delaney/Worthington, but we didn't. Also, other failed candidates also have news articles, as they were just that, election candidates, but they're now failed candidates. They still have news articles don't they? The presence of news articles does not establish noteability. Timeshift (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure we should the fate of this article based on previous similar articles - that is against WP:WAX. Addionne (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't twist what is said. My point is that news articles in themselves do not establish noteability and gave an example. Timeshift (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Recall the guy and he was quite likeable, but now that the election is over and he failed to win, he fails WP:BIO. I wouldn't be unsurprised if he wins in 2010, in which case he can have an article then. Orderinchaos 17:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: The article in its current state requires improvement, but this could be achieved. Colbran is well known in Queensland. To me, the notable aspects about him are his disagreement with Peter Garrett (when Garrett was formerly an environmentalist). Garrett and the band Midnight Oil campaigned against Colbran opening up McDonalds restaurants around Townsville. It was an amusing irony when Cobran eventually joined the Labor Party with Garrett. Colbran himself used to campaign against restrictions to junk food advertising for children. He had to eat his words, so to speak, after joining the Labor Party when Labor launched a policy to restrict junk food advertising. These are memorable aspects of Colbran that don't appear to be in the article. The article should be reworked to get rid of the trivial stuff, and add the more memorable facts.--Lester 02:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a source can be found for this and the article amended I would change my opinion to keep --Matilda talk 02:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ABC 2007 ... but that is in the context of the election - I would like something to say it was notable at the time--Matilda talk 03:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Tony Mooney is not the mayor of Townsville anymore and he still has a page and is said to be notable so why isn't George notable....forget the election and look at what he has done for this area, this page needs to be kept but i will say that it does need a tidy up and add ALL the info about him.Thuringowacityrep (talk) 05:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mooney was actually elected to the office of Mayor. Colbran wasn't elected as member for Herbert. Frickeg (talk) 06:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why are we using asterisks to reply? On a side note i've fixed up the messed chronology and duplication per article. Timeshift (talk) 07:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • We use asterisks to reply so you can tell where one sentence ends and the other starts....keeping the page tidy.Thuringowacityrep (talk) 10:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While it seems he fails WP:BIO for politicians, it is quite possible he passes it as a community leader in his local area. Perhaps the article could be rewritten to emphasise this; after all, he did win an OA for it. Tentative Keep.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since when are "community leaders in their local area" noteable? Timeshift (talk) 01:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep 23rd most powerful Townsville person (excluding parliamentarians and media personalities). Andrew Lau II (talk) 07:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC) blocked vandal WWGB (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I hope nobody takes the above vote for real... this really is pathetic, the guy fails noteability on all fronts. This is a textbook case of non noteability. Timeshift (talk) 07:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give your POV a rest Timeshift....he is a very well known businessman here in a City of nearly 200,000...plus he is involved in many other things (that need to be added on his page) he owns 9 restaurants, raised the money to build Ronald McDonald House, is one of the Management Committee for the NQ Cowboys....need I go on....and you say he is not notable, look at this guy David Carmichael he is just a chef with a few restaurants and yet he is notable, anyone can see that this page should be kept but re-writen to add ALL of his info.Thuringowacityrep (talk) 09:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not POV, simple fact. And just because one page exists but shouldnt, doesn't give precedent for just as other non noteworthy pages. Don't worry, we're right, it's a textbook case, and it's only a matter of time before this article is gone. Timeshift (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - failed political candidate with only local notability. Biruitorul Talk 20:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have the people that said that George in NOT notable read the Additional criteria part of the Wikipedia:Notability (people) page ......it clearly states A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included part of these standards are Any biography, The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. Also The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field, And being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject...need i say more, he is notable...have a read of this page Wikipedia:Notability (people) and you will all see that this page can stay.Thuringowacityrep (talk) 03:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which he doesn't meet. I also take note that the article's creator has just noted here that they have no problems with the article's deletion. Timeshift (talk) 10:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So??? it doesn't matter if the article's creator doesn't have any problems...it's not realy up to him anymore as it have been put to a vote....your very one sided arn't you....what have you got against George, and tell me WHY he doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) from what i have seen, he does.Thuringowacityrep (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sooner you stop thinking people have something against him, the better. I've come across many AfDs like this before, it's a textbook delete, you just have invested emotions in the article. I don't. That's why i'm a Labor voter and want this page gone - HE IS NOT NOTEWORTHY! But as i've already said, don't worry, this will all be over soon enough, with the page deleted. Timeshift (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry that you vote that way, and that is your choice...but because you "WANT THE PAGE GONE" is not a valid reason to delete it, and who are you to say I have envested emotions in the article....bullshit.... I'm just sick of editors like you that have to delete notable page like this one because of your political preference....I don't care that he ran in some stupid election, I want the page kept as do others because of what he has done for the area, the awards and honor's he has received plus the success of his business.Thuringowacityrep (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't WANT THE PAGE GONE... I want NON-NOTEABLE TEXTBOOK CASE ARTICLES GONE which has happened for ages on wikipedia, and will continue to happen for ages on wikipedia. This page is just one of many soon to be sucked in to oblivion for clearly being non-noteable. And what political preference? I'd never vote Lib/Nat, Labor always comes first, and regardless I don't let it come in the way of my edits, your attacks on me make no sense. He is non-noteable and will soon be gone. Enjoy. Timeshift (talk) 01:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— 202.168.11.22 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 12:03, 21 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/George_Colbran&oldid=1137875218"