Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Reed Horton
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 due to lack of consensus. This is getting heated and off-topic, and the diffs posted by Pete Hurd are enough to call into question the good faith of this AfD. An early close seems called for to defuse the issue. No prejudice against another AfD, if one is deemed necessary by someone unconnected to this little tiff. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Frank Reed Horton
Being one of the two founders of an organization doesn't make a person notable. Also, most of the sources come from Boy Scouts material, which is a POV. Miranda 00:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Per nom, NN. Spawn Man Review Me! 01:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I vote to delete this article. The sources listed in this article are not independent sources and are inadequate to fully support this article. Also, the subjet of the article is not notable enough to warrant an independent article. HistoricDST (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep/Merge - Preference is for keep, but I'd be ok with a merge into an overall Founders of Alpha Phi Omega. However, this is most certainly a bad faith nomination and that should be taken into consideration. Justinm1978 (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Putting articles up for AFD out of a sense of revenge just isn't appropriate. (This is.IMO, in response to the listing of the less well known founders of DST up for AFD.) See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities#Notability of Founders Naraht (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- As per above, I fail to see how this is a bad faith nom? And it's also a little fishy that both you and Justinm1978 are both members of Alpha Phi Omega - there's probably one of those secret frat-cult-member-stick-together things that obliges you to save Alpha Phi Omega articles from deletion riight? Spawn Man Review Me! 02:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- The only reason the nominator put this up for nomination was because several articles of hers were put up for nomination here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nellie Pratt Russell by me, and she highly disagrees with that. Rather than throw a huge stink about this, I'm willing to consider a merge into the main Alpha Phi Omega article or even merge this, plus the other bad-faith noms, into a generic "founders of Alpha Phi Omega" article. And the personal attack isn't really necessary. Justinm1978 (talk) 02:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Show me references and I'll change my vote, but I can't just abandon WP:V. Spawn Man Review Me! 04:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- As per above, I fail to see how this is a bad faith nom? And it's also a little fishy that both you and Justinm1978 are both members of Alpha Phi Omega - there's probably one of those secret frat-cult-member-stick-together things that obliges you to save Alpha Phi Omega articles from deletion riight? Spawn Man Review Me! 02:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and prosify, and reference better --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment As she threatened to do here "Fuck, let's just delete Alpha Phi Alpha's founders too" and here "Let's see, how about I AFD all of the Eagle Scout founders, and we will call it even." we have a WP:POINT retaliatory AfD for a frat founding, scouting mucketey-muck. I think he's not notable, and ought to be delted, but I can't endorse behaviour like this. (Note: in retrospect, I think the articles she wrote that were up for AfD that I !voted "delete" on ought to have been kept and cleaned up, which was the outcome. I understand her anger, but this is just not on. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2007 (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.
