Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Buckley

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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raymond Buckley

PROD'd and deprodded, the subject is the chairperson of a DNC Regional Caucus. I don't see any evidence the subject meets WP:BIO. Concern has been expressed that this is a WP:VAIN or WP:AUTO violation as well based on the creator's username, though it should be noted that is speculation at this point. Delete per subject not meeting WP:BIO though.--Isotope23 20:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Changed to No Opinion. Somewhere it the bloated cruftiness of the article, I missed the fact that the subject once was a NH State Representative, which would meet WP:BIO. I'm going to tag the article for cleanup though because it is an overblown mess.--Isotope23 13:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as the original prodder, I say, not even close to notable outside the political circles of one state. Deprodded by the serial deprodder and time-waster VivianDarkbloom (talk • contribs), too. --Calton | Talk 00:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Reading WP:BIO, it says the following people are notable, and I quote:

  "Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature. (For candidates for office, see the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Candidates and elections.) " (emphasis mine)

  . He is verifiable and notable as such. He served in the New Hampshire General Court as a memeber of the House of Representatives for 18 years, and served in leadership roles in said body, including Party Whip. He passes notability tests with flying colors. Also, the fact that it is an Autobiographical article has NO bearing on the subjects notability. The subjects notability is verifiable by outside sources. The article needs a major rewrite to removed NPOV concerns, but it doesn't mean that WikiPedia does not need an article on this guy. Oh, and I shouldn't have to remind Calton to assume good faith and to play nice with others. --Jayron32 03:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Hmm, I guess I should remind you that AGF says This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary, so you need to read past the first paragraph. So don't offer smarmy lectures when you don't know what you're talking about, it just makes you look foolish. But if you still need a hint, try here, here, here, here, and here. --Calton | Talk 07:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Still keep I cleaned up the article a LOT, but it still needs help. The subject is a former member of the New Hampshire legislature, and I have refenced verifiable sources to show such. That should remove notability problems with regard to WP:NN. I have left in most of the original information as is that I could not confirm via google search. This information should be cited with verifiable sources (doesn't HAVE to be internet sources, could be print reports like news paper articles or books). If not verified within a reasonable amount of time, I will return to eliminate that information. There is still enough here, however, in my opinion, to prevent article deletion as the subject is notable. --Jayron32 18:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I've striken the preface of your comment because it isn't the best wikietiquette to state keep a second time. WP:AGF, you meant no harm by it. I've also stricken all the unsourced information per WP:LIVING with no predjudice against it being added back if it gets sourced. What is left still meets WP:BIO.--Isotope23 19:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• No problem. I made comments on the Talk page that I would do just such. I figured we ought to give people some time to improve it. I merely noticed that he was a state legislator, and that he thus met WP:NN guidelines. I just added enough to assert as much. Thanks for your help in cleaning up the article as well :) --Jayron32 03:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I guess, statewide office helps him peep over the bar. Not going to be a candidate for good article status in this shape though. Deizio talk 20:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment yeah, it still needs cleanup... but at least it is sourced now and cut down to what is verified. I'd rather have an ugly sourced article than a pretty piece of original research.--Isotope23 20:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This was a good deprod, and I'm glad the article has been rescued. Even if state legislator wasn't enough to meet WP:BIO, the fact that he was party whip is. Good job with the sourcing, trimming, and deletion of unverifiable nonsense. Captainktainer * Talk 04:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• comment added more information still. Hope it's getting better. Still stubby, but improving. --Jayron32 05:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep meets WP:BIO --Marriedtofilm 05:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

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.