Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Craig (Irish Professor)

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 Speedy Keep (bad-faith nom). — Scientizzle 23:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Craig (Irish Professor)

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

James Craig (Irish professor) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete. No 'reliable, secondary coverage'. Fails WP:BIO. Fails WP:PROF. Extremely sexy 19:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Elected politician. Nominator is making WP:POINT and not acting in good faith. - Kittybrewster ☎ 19:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. This voter is too closely tied to the article creator to be able to vote unbiased. Extremely sexy 19:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • And Kittybrewster is entitled to speak on this just as much as BrownHairedGirl. Based on the note below, this entry, AND your bit of lawyering, I hereby call obvious bad faith. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. You are supposed to vote regarding the deletion of the article, not regarding the nominator. Extremely sexy 22:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and speedy close.. Clearly meets WP:BIO#Additional_criteria: "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature." --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. This voter is the article creator, so he is not allowed to vote here himself, and every article has to be sourced, while this clearly one isn't at all. Extremely sexy 19:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply Bart, I should have disclosed that I am the article's primary author, but I am not constrained from voting. You should read an article before nominating it for deletion. The source is at the bottom of the article: This page incorporates information from the Oireachtas Members Database.
      I would be the first to acknowledge that this article is a weak, single-source stub; but it meets WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Speedy keep as bad faith nom. There is no policy preventing an article creator from participating in AfD. In fact, it's practically expected. Not to mention, I highly doubt BrownHairedGirl is a he. --Smashville^BONK! 22:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. Actually, I do know that it's a "she", but the "he" does refer to the voter in general, hence. Extremely sexy 23:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note canvassing. I have direct evidence that this AfD was planned off-wiki as part of the campaign of disruption by the nominator's friend User:Ryoung122. The text of the email from Young says:

Greetings,
I find it ironic that almost all of the articles listed as created by user Brown-Haired Girl are either UNSOURCED or poorly sourced:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrownHairedGirl/Contribs-2006-05
For example,
Not a SINGLE source for this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Craig_%28Irish_Professor%29
Someone should nominate this deletion, and tag the others as 'unreferenced'.
Fair is fair. Play by the rules, if you are enforcing them on others.
Regards
Moderator

There are many other similar emails on that mailing list, mostly under a thread starting at http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/9065 -- the latest email gives advice on how to join wikipedia to participate in the AfDs listed by Robert Young, with advice such as "Look, it is good to be 'active' and establish yourself first, with a user page and ID, before going to 'vote.'"

It seems that the nominator just took the email, and didn't even do his own checks to see if the article was sourced. Not a good idea. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I did my own checks, and nominated them accordingly (just as you did with all the supercentenarian related articles), since only a couple have sufficient references, yes. Extremely sexy 20:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • You have just tagged as unreferenced a whole series of articles which were referenced; and you have tagged as refimprove articles in which every fact is covered in the listed sources and where notability per WP:BIO is established through being a member of a national parliament. Bart, but that's not adequate checking. You are simply working through the target list which Robert sent you, without assessment, in a classic WP:POINT exercise. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. That's not true at all honestly, since I did not tag all of them, because they have enough (= at least 2) references: refimprove means to ask for more references, right? Extremely sexy 20:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      • You did, for example, tag Denis Allen with a {{refimprove}}, even though everything in that short article is in the listed sources; and you tagged many others as {{unreferenced}} when they had one ref. I note on your talk page that you describe this as a war, which is is never clever, and doing it as a proxy for a blocked editor is very unclever indeed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. No: not me, but you are acting yourself as if it is a war, since you specifically tagged all articles about supercentenarians particularly, and a source template is not a reference though. Extremely sexy 21:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per BHG of course, as elected national politician. Title perhaps not ideal, as "Irish politician" or whatever is main notability. And should Professor not have a small "p"? Johnbod 20:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Indeed so, and I just fixed this. Extremely sexy 20:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, of course, and censure nominator for frivolous and vexatious nomination. -- roundhouse0 20:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I acted just like the article creator did. Extremely sexy 20:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and speedy close. Obvious - a member of a national legislature will always meet WP:BIO. Valenciano 20:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - legislators who sat in a national body are inherently notable, and the evidence suggests this was a WP:POINT issue. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Nationally elected politicians, especially ones who served six terms, are notable, and comments from the nominator like "I acted just like the article creator did" make it hard to see this as anything other than a WP:POINT nomination. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 21:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and close, on account of what seems to be the nom trying to prove some sort of WP:POINT. I'm not impressed by their lawyering about BrownHairedGirl's commentary, and even less impressed by what seems to be general pedantry. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. You are supposed to vote regarding the deletion of the article, not regarding the nominator. Extremely sexy 22:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you should heed your own advice. You should not be telling people how they are supposed to vote. If you are warring against the author, then you bet that's prevalent to the situation. --Smashville^BONK! 22:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Where did I tell people how they are supposed to vote, huh, man? Extremely sexy 23:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and close, gains automatic notability through the politician criteria - specifics as he is a politican who " held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature"--Vintagekits 22:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and close - per Vintagekits above. John Carter 23:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per Vintagekits. --Crusio 23:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 22:40, 13 November 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.