Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Ehrich

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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Ehrich[edit]

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

1. This page appears to have been created purely to attack the subject

2. The subject himself does not appear to have sufficient notability to justify an article Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this attack page. Not only is it completely biased, but the person it is attacking does not have the notability to justify an article. Qworty (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I have removed the WP:BLP violations at once from this article, in accordance with the policy. Thank you for bringing this egregious case to the attention of the WP community. Qworty (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The WP:SPA who is using Wikipedia to attack this living person also recently vandalized the AfD tag [1]. If I see any further policy violations on the part of the user I will bring the matter up at AN/I. This atrocious behavior is not what WP is supposed to be about. Qworty (talk) 08:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. AJHingston (talk) 09:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A magistrate (as opposed to a judge) would have to be the subject of a lot more public discussion and comment than this. Obviously created as an attack page and what is left after the attack components are removed is little more than a CV. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The user who has nominated the article for deletion here has done so twice already. The first time he proposed summary deletion, incorrectly alleging that the article contained legal threats and was libellous. When his errors were pointed out and the summary deletion tag removed, he then again proposed deletion, but when I defended the article on the talk page, the user did not respond and attempt to reach consensus as the Wikipedia policy states, when he was given three whole days in which to do so. Now he has started yet another deletion process, effectively his third bite of the cherry. I submit that this is an Abuse of process. The fact that he has not participated in his own deletion process last time means that he cannot then start yet another deletion process. This new process is therefore illegitimate. That is why I deleted the deletion tag. I ask that it be recognised that this process is invalid and that the deletion discussion be terminated on these grounds.

My reasons for the article being kept are contained on the talk page. I stand by those reasons. Apollo1986 (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable.--Grahame (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This process is invalid. As per my point above, the deletion policy states that "Pages that do not fall in the above three categories (copyright,speedy deletion and proposed deletion) may be deleted after community discussion at one of the deletion discussions". Therefore, this process can only be commenced if the process for proposed deletion has never been started. The problem is that has been, therefore it fits into the proposed deletion process (which has now been finalised), and it follows that the result being that the deletion tag was removed, as per policy.

Therefore, I propose to delete the deletion tag and restore the article to how it as before. Please let me know if you disagree with my conclusion that this is in accordance with policy and if so on what grounds. Apollo1986 (talk) 01:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any article can be taken to AfD at anytime. It is not up to the article's "owner" to remove the AfD tag.--Grahame (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, horrendous BLP issues aside, there are no reliable sources I can find that would allow us to construct a verifiable article on Ehrich. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Apollo1986 is completely wrong in thinking that this AfD is invalid. He is also incorrect in saying that the material now removed was appropriate under the WP:BLP policy. I have to agree with Lankiveil, Mattinbgn and others. This magistrate is not notable and the article should be deleted. If Apollo1986 disrupts the process again he should be blocked until the AfD has been closed. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At best a news item. -- Whpq (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment obvious that Apollo1986 has a grudge against this magistrate. I would say WP:COI also applies here. LibStar (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication the subject is notable. Edward321 (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as attack page. although the attacks has been removed, the article subject does not pass WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 06:03, 12 February 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.