Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John R. A. Moulton

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John R. A. Moulton

John R. A. Moulton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete individual who was a losing candidate in a municipal election. Mindmatrix 19:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:BIO is very clear on the criteria for including politicians & this chap fails miserably. • nancy • 19:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nancy. Subdolous 19:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per smile-inducing notability claims such as "ranked 167th out of 172 in the Canadian Classic Table Hockey Federation's 2006 Championship" This fellow is so non-notable even mosquitoes forget to bite him. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as above, and points to Andrew for getting a chuckle with that delete comment. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not even close to notable. Hal peridol 23:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, easily fails WP:BIO. Doctorfluffy 00:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Starblind. Bearian'sBooties 19:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment -- nobody remembered until now to inform the article's author, User:Zanimum, a trusted, high volume editor and administrator. Let's see what he says. --A. B. (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: my mistake - I usually notify the creator in these cases, but I messed up this time. Mindmatrix 14:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
      • No big deal -- I'm sure I must have done the same before. I think it would be valuable to have his participation, especially in evaluating the abstracts I turned up below. Also, if this is deleted, he may want it userfied so he can work on it.
  • Weak keep -- Try leaving out the middle initials and searching for just "John Moulton"+Brampton. I found several references in Google's News Archives:
  1. Grewal, San. "Sprawl, gridlock dominate tight race", Toronto Star, 2006-11-06. Retrieved on 2007-11-06. 
  2. Grewal, San. "Growth, gridlock loom large", Toronto Star, 2006-11-02. Retrieved on 2007-11-06. 
  3. "Candidates", Toronto Star, 2006-11-09. Retrieved on 2007-11-06. 
  4. Moreau, Nicholas. "Two Brampton residents announce 2010 mayoral intentions", The Brampton News, 2006-11-16. Retrieved on 2007-11-06. 
Unfortunately, the Brampton Guardian does not appear to have online archives (that I could find). --A. B. (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Those articles are behind a pay wall. I haven't paid for access to them, but I suspect that the extent of their coverage of this individual is to note that he participated in the municipal elections, but failed to win a seat. Such individuals rarely merit inclusion in Wikipedia, unless there are other reasons for their inclusion. The Toronto Star and others routinely mention all individuals that run in municipal, provincial and federal elections; only the elected candidates and losing incumbents deserve their own WP article. Others should be relegated to Brampton municipal election, 2006 and the like, in my opinion. Mindmatrix 14:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Revised comment: Delete, or merge as Zanimum sees fit. --A. B. (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, or merge. I'm the creator, as mentioned above, but yeah, delete. It was during the election, and this guy had no information online about himself (besides what I found) and didn't speak to the local newspaper. So basically this was created, to provide our town of 400,000 with some information to make an informed choice. The Brampton News reference is me, btw. -- Zanimum 19:07, 6 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.