Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loius Carlet (2nd nomination)

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 as a bad-faith nomination. Nandesuka 11:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Louis Carlet

Louis Carlet (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

1. Since first AFD and the merge discussion much of the text in this article is now duplicated in a subsection of the National Union of General Workers article
2. Person is not notable outside the context of the union
3. Person is not notable in Japan
4. Page seems to be promotional for the Union
5. He is the deputy General of a small Chapter of the Union
6. The Union itself is borderline notable with only a few hundred members

At the very least this page should be redirected to the Union page. -- Sparkzilla talk! 16:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - This is the second time the same editor has nominated the article for deletion (first time there was no concensus leaning towards keep), this time on the heels of a unsuccessful merge. The person is notable, and the article contains sources for everything contained in it. Statisticalregression 14:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Obviously a notable person, passes WP:RS and WP:V. Everything in the article is sourced, doesn't seem promotional to me. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

*Keep notablity established and referenced. More than just a branch official. On further examination of sources it appears that some of them reference only the union and others only the march -- moreover, none establish that he is the organiser of the march (which attracted just 300 participants) - delete. Bigdaddy1981 02:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete/MergeA virtual unknown outside of a extraordinarily small group of union activists in Tokyo. Maybe 300 max. Apparently persons who know the subject are using the internet to promote their friend or fellow union member. Nothing prevents these advocates from setting up their own home page in honor of Mr. Carlet---but it's inappropriate to use the Wikipedia for this kind of activity. And you will notice none of the "keep" posters have put anyone else of the same level of significance into the Wikipedias. Spellin 13:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Spellin
• Strong keep. - As per Ten Pound Hammer. David Lyons 16:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/merge I haven't participated in previous discussions, which there have been two, and I am open to the suggestion that process is being abused in this situation. However, while I hope one day Mr Carlet becomes notable and more power to him and the union, however, sources 2, 3 are self written and 5 is nothing more than an advertisment for the union's march, source 4 has nothing to say about Mr. Carlet. Like I said, nothing against the union and Mr. Carlet and I am sure he can be an excellent source as for reports, but I can't see why he is notable under WP:BIO at this time in his career. Sorry, Mr. Carlet. XinJeisan 02:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Close without prejudice. Apparently this AfD may be a WP:POINT problem per this [1] (scroll down to near the bottom). --Charlene 15:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• USER:Sparkzilla, The originator of this AfD, engaged in WP:CANVAS here and here in an attempt to get user to change votes after they had already voted. There are real WP:POINT issues surfacing, and the conduct of USER:Sparkzilla on another BLP currently has him blocked with no expiration pending discussion.[2]Statisticalregression 18:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

However, it should also be pointed out, that the recent exchange about deleting or merging this entry, arose shortly after it was attempted to have a "controversies" section ADDED to the alleged notable's Wiki entry. At the time, in fact, it was StatisticalRegression who decided it was not appropriate.

That was a single unsourced comment that violated BLP, if the AfD was done in retribution to the removal of that material see here then there's all the more reason to close this AfDStatisticalregression 00:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It is odd that Mr. Carlet is allegedy notable enough to have an independent entry. Yet, because he is a virtual unknown in the mainstream media (Japan or anywhere), you won't find any countercriticism on him personally---virtually no one knows who he is.

So getting back to the Controversies section, why is that NOT worth including, if this person is so well noted (even if that would just be among a handful of foreigners in Japan?)Spellin 23:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Just review WP:BLP and discuss the issue on the articles talk page, bringing it up here is not appropriateStatisticalregression 00:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It is simply brought up in the context, that there would not be many independent media sources reporting any contoversies, on someone who is not notable. Not to dispute whether such a section is merited or not. Additionally, reviewing the material and your comments regarding Sparkzilla, it is difficult for me to see how you are applying an even hand with this entry and its debate. From the other discussion, it appears you simply want to limit Sparkzilla's influence, regardless of whether the poster has made good points. You even go so far as to insinuate the identities of OTHER posters when you challenge what Sparkzilla does within the Wiki community. Please do more reading of the Wiki rules, and not just make broad references to other users about them. Such a break might be worthwhile.Spellin 09:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Deputy general of a union. If WP:V and WP:RS apply, remove to stub or cleanup--ZayZayEM 04:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Ooops... only a subsection head eh? Delete unless there is something else they are known for--ZayZayEM 04:42, 18 July 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.