Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Grant Neufeld/vote2

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.

The result of the debate was no consensus. SWAdair | Talk 09:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grant Neufeld

Non-notable nobody from Alberta. Delete. --Spinboy 17:21, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: First vfd for this page at: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Grant Neufeld/vote1

. This note appears (due to placement above header) to have been accidentally inserted in the "Victory is mine" VfD instead. This article's subject is a politician, see the referenced previous VfD for reasons to keep or delete. No vote. Barno 18:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's allowed to be voted on again. --Spinboy 19:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Subject is notable, not so much for political career so far (President of Alberta Greens, candidate in Alberta general election, 2004), but as founder (in 2000) of the first Revolutionary Knitting Circle (now an international activist movement). From the talk page for the article: Earl Andrew wrote "A rather good (and worthy) article for vanity." (to which Mat334 replied "Indeed."). --GrantNeufeld 19:10, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Writing your own article AND voting on whether to keep it? That's 'two violations of Wikipedia norms, not to mention the pretentiousness of writing about yourself in the third-person. --Calton | Talk 01:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • As someone else has pointed here, self-written articles aren't absolute grounds for deletion. As to voting on it myself, I voted to delete the previous article on this topic last November when I was brand new to WP and that article was not appropriate to WP (it really was just a vanity page). Thankfully, some of the kind folks here pointed out the error of what I had done (I don't object to having my mistakes identified), and I supported the call for deletion. I didn't see or receive any indication then that it was inappropriate for me to vote on my own article, and would be very disappointed if there was a rule against authors defending their articles in VfDs. Finally, as to speaking/writing about myself in the third-person, that was necessary for the article (and an extra challenge as I always feel awkward in those situations where I have to talk about myself as someone else). You're right that it does come across pretentious, but writing in the first person would have been entirely inappropriate for WP. --GrantNeufeld 00:57, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I disagree with you Grant -- I think that your political career is notable enough for an article. It is of interest to poli-geeks like me. Wikipedia can be (almost) all things to all people. (You should take a look at the huge number of articles about minor characters in Star Wars, Star Trek and the Harry Potter series. Wikipedia is an amazing meeting place for people of widely differing interests. Usually a vanity article would be an almost dead-cert for deletion, but in this case, your article is by-in-large, factual. I've groomed it a bit to make it more encyclopedic, so I think it should stay. Kevintoronto 16:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I personally think that an article on a pokemon character is more notable than Grant. --Spinboy 23:25, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah and this is exactly my point, Spinny. You may be interested in learning more about Pokemon, which my 9-11-year-old nephews and niece have abandoned as being "uncool" for kids their age, while I am interested in following the politics of minor political parties and figures, which is uncool for all age groups. That's what makes Wikipedia such a great place to hang out. 'Twould be a pity if Wikipedia were restricted to only certain types of geekery. Kevintoronto 23:54, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep CJCurrie 23:21, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Self-promotion, vanity, activistcruft. --Calton | Talk 01:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity/Self-promotion is only grounds for deletion if the article cannot stand on its own merits. Granted, they are frowned upon, but if a notable person writes a valid article about himself/herself there is no reason to delete the article simply because it wasn't written by someone else. Does the article stand on its own? Is the subject (Grant Neufeld) notable? Politician/organizer for a party that, in its area, strongly outperformed my own party (nationwide, U.S.) in terms of % of popular vote. Much more than your average political activist. Undoubtedly more notable than Bane (Harry Potter). On the other hand, neither he nor his party has been elected to office, and last year's unsuccessful run for office was for a riding. Google gives 1,760 hits for "revolutionary knitting circle" (insufficient impact to base notability upon) while "Grant Neufeld" gets 2,830 Google hits. Most of the activism mentioned were things he was involved in, but did not necessarily have a major role in. It really bothers me that Bane (Harry Potter) is apparently considered notable enough for inclusion while I have to conclude that Grant is not yet. Grant, we have articles about Chiefs of police. As a minimum requirement for inclusion, I think you're going to have to get elected to public office. SWAdair | Talk 05:40, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, I have had "a major role in" all the groups & projects mentioned in the Activism section of the article. I have been at the head of all of them, and I was either the founder or a co-founder of all except for the Calgary Rainforest Action Group and the Alberta Social Forum. I deliberately left out the numerous other projects I played a less significant role in.
    As I've said elsewhere, I don't consider my politics to be quite sufficiently "notable" alone. It's my role in founding and leading the Revolutionary Knitting Circle that I figure provides sufficient notability. It has become an international movement (across Canada, and in the U.S. and various parts of Europe). It first garnered international attention in 2002 - with media coverage across the northern hemisphere ranging from small local publications to national and international media. It continues to draw public attention. In the past month alone, I have had phone inquiries from media in Holland and a researcher in New York, as well as the usual email inquiries from all over, and other inquiries from various parts of Canada.
    Thanks for your considered and considerate feedback.--GrantNeufeld 01:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So if you are so important why did you have to add yourself? 66.238.97.33 01:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• If this gets out you could very well become the laughingstock of Alberta..not that that means much either...
  • The above comment by User:66.238.97.33
• Delete as vanity. Radiant_* 11:33, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. His electoral career is not as bad as may appear: coming in third with 9% of the vote in a province where the Greens are probably generally fourth to sixth at best is unique and impressive. Activist doings, many as a leader or co-leader, put him over the bar. Published an independent newspaper: although short-lived, if circulation was general enough this probably meets the editor test. I wouldn't have voted to keep in the previous VfD, by the way. Samaritan 15:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We have a page somewhere about no autobiographies. While it's not an absolute rule, I've never yet seen an exception made. I don't believe this article qualifies either. If you're notable enough, wait till someone else writes the article. You should not even edit it. It's just too easy for accusations of bias to creep in. Rossami (talk) 04:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.