Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Poor

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 of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 19:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ed Poor

Vanity article, created by, guess who, Ed Poor, delete--1 use 17:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the reasons given in the nomination aren't very good. However, I'd nominate this for deletion myself if it hadn't already been done, for lack of verifiability and significance. I urge those considering the deletion question to think about the merits of the article rather than the nomination or the author. Friday (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep not a vanity article, the person this is about has been dead 40 years. Also co founded a major government associated company.Gateman1997 17:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, seems to be marginally notable :-) However, move to the full name and then delete the resulting redirect. Lupo 17:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Grumman article mentions five other co-founders, shall we have stubs for those gentlemen too? Endomion 17:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Needs more about Grumman. Capitalistroadster 17:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Indeed. We should add articles about his co-founders as well. Grumman was a huge and important company.Gateman1997 19:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Move It is a vanity article, sort of. (Our Ed says in the edit history that it's his "gramps".) Probably notable, but needs to be at full name, where it was originally (till our Ed moved it.) Xoloz 18:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• I don't see much verifiability or significance here. Delete unless this situation improves. Friday (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. --Fang Aili 18:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep Marginally notable. Try to keep the article creator out of the debate - it really doesn't have anything to do with the situation. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamaliel 19:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Appears to be notable only as one of five co-founders of Grumman Aircraft - recommend merging this article and the ones for the other co-founders into the history section of Grumman. This is definitely not vanity. B.Wind 19:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• According to Jake Swirbul, the only reason he was a "co-founder" was that he invested a small amount of money in it. I see nothing to indicate he's a particularly important part of Grumman Aircraft history. And, it most certainly IS vanity to write articles about one's self or one's parents, but as pointed out above, articles should be considered on their own merits. This person appears to have been of purely local interest, so in my opinion is not very encyclopedic. Friday (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Friday's comments above. Ed Poor deserves one sentence at best in the main Grummann article. Flyboy Will 20:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Grumman Aircraft per Friday, but only under his correct name (not "Ed Poor") per Lupo. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep please this is a notable person of long island Yuckfoo 21:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. -- JJay 02:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, another tiresome improper listing. Dan100 (Talk) 20:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Per above. Banes 16:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for above reasons, but it may help to give more references, etc. --King of All the Franks 16:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment There has been a massive comment-spamming effort by an anonymous IP attempting to keep this article. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Two anonymous AOL IPs: 172.159.25.124 (talk · contribs) and 172.150.77.35 (talk · contribs). -- Curps 16:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Merge anything of substance into the Grunman Aircraft article. --Improv 16:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, I wish to note that it seems unusual for such a young account to be nominating things for deletion. 1 use, who are you, and why are all your edits relating to Ed Poor? --Improv 16:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Obvious Unregistered users can't create new pages, and since an AfD is a new page...Unregistered users can't create AfD pages, even though there is nothing official preventing unregistered AfD creation--1 use 06:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, seems to be encyclopedic enough. However, Ed doesn't necessarily have the best judgment: a few months ago he added a mention of himself to Charles Lane Poor (who was a notable astronomer). -- Curps 16:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. In my opinion, this article is not a vanity article because it is written about a person who died 38 years ago. Even though the creator of the article may have the same username as this article name, it is not a vanity article since a dead person cannot do so. The article does need to be expanded however. --Peter McGinley 17:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. I think that spamming user talk pages to try getting help in this discussion is a very bad idea. :o) Hégésippe | ±Θ± 17:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP! Notable individual! Merry Christmas and Peace to all! Dwain 18:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable in the least.Gator (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Co-founder of Grumman not notable? That's a ridiculous notion. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 00:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Reply -- It does indeed sound pretty ridiculous until you learn what B.Wind and Friday pointed out, that he was one of five such "co-founders" and that his contribution was a modest financial investment in the company. Then it's not so ridiculous to think that maybe he deserves a mention in Grumman Aircraft and possibly a redirect under his correct name (i.e., not "Ed Poor"), but not a full article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Why was a notice of this discussion deleted from my talk page? Dominick ^(TALK) 22:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • See above notes by ESkog and Curps regarding wide-scale spamming of such messages -- and if the message left on your talk page [1] was a representative part of that campaign, it was not only a massive spamming but a massive violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith: "Editor's contributions singled out for his faith, please help keep this notable article". 172.159.25.124 (talk · contribs) is allowed to think that the article is notable if he chooses but he cannot go around accusing other editors, without any sort of evidence, of "singl[ing] out" Ed's articles because of his faith. Ed Poor's faith is not the issue; the notability of Edmund Ward Poor is. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Being chief beancounter for an aircraft company -- not engineer, CEO, president, etc. -- doesn't count for much. --Calton | Talk 01:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, per Friday.--Sean|Black 06:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Agree with ESkog's comments. AnnH ^(talk) 23:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect - Stoph 15:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. anon spamming is not good, but Grumman was large enough for a co-founder to have some notability.--SarekOfVulcan 23:37, 27 December 2005 (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.