Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chad McVeigh

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. Sango123 00:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chad McVeigh

Fixing this AfD nomination; I am not sure who actually first wanted this article deleted. --Metropolitan90 05:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as apparently autobiographical article about non-notable student political activist. --Metropolitan90 05:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• This was created for the National Director of Development of the College Democrats of America and not a site started for a friend. there is no reason to delete this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OhioDem (talk • contribs)
• Many statements made in this entry are purely fabricated. This entry should only be kept if altered to be accurate and true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.156.97 (talk • contribs)
• The idea of having a page for the officers of a college organization is an unjustifiable drain on wikipedia resources. If the CDA really wants its officers to have their own page, they should take advantage of the opensource nature of Wikipedia and create their own Wiki. As it is, these pages will see little traffic. After all, as grand as the titles sound, these offices are tiny in significance. -Zapagap
• Delete, Delete, and delete. This is pure vanity. Daniel Case 05:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, generally individual officers of these youth/student political organizations are non-notable per WP:BIO. I also proposed deletion of Lauren Wolfe for similar reasons (although, in that article's defense, at least she's the president of the organization). --Kinu ^t/_c 05:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with major cleanup If you look at the links at the bottom, it is clear that the person in question should be considered notable. However the unwikified nature of the article (covered in external rather than wiki links) combined with a potential lack of NPOV acts to shoot itself in the foot. LinaMishima 06:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. --Peta 06:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: A biography of someone in his 20's? A major political profile for someone that age? No. Not yet. There is some chance that he'll be a political player/wonk in the future, but, at present, he's just a young person working for a party. Geogre 13:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Certainly notable within certain contexts, but not notable enough for Wikipedia. This material belongs on an organizational or personal website, not here. A brief mention in College Democrats is all that's justified. Perhaps Lauren Wolfe should be nominated on similar grounds. Rohirok 16:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Wolfe is president of the national organization, and blogs at a notable site. I'd say she should be kept. Daniel Case 21:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as subject falls below the criteria outlined at WP:BIO.--Isotope23 19:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per User:Kinu --Lomedae 00:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as there is no assertion of notability to the WP:BIO standards. GRBerry 16:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. TheRingess 03:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Vandalism? The article has seen some substantial changes, some of which are clearly vandalisms, whilst others which reduce the length may be attempts to make the article more acceptable. I am at a loss as to which version to revert the article to. LinaMishima 12:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I've gone ahead an picked a version to revert to. It might not be perfect, but is essentially the version I saw when I opined above. Better to pick some decent version to revert to and let editing proceed than to leave it blank except for the AFD notice. GRBerry 13:19, 4 August 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.