Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Gourley

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 00:36, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Gourley

Political vanity page of the president of a national student political association. Nice start to his career, but not enough for a biographical article. Calton | Talk 06:46, July 14, 2005 (UTC) [added missing phrase -- sorry! --Calton | Talk 11:07, July 14, 2005 (UTC)]

• Delete, leading a student club is normally not notable. Dcarrano 07:40, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 10:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Gourley appears to be the chairman of a large nationwide political organization. That makes him a notable politician IMO. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. His organization is more notable than most student groups, more than many nationwide student groups, but its political-activism function does not make him a "notable politician". The article does make a bit of claim to independent notability at the end, crediting his leadership for increased influence by the group in 2004 USA elections, but I feel this overstates the case both for the group and for Mr. Gourley. If broader media recognition than the Reagan Award can be verified, then keep the article on the basis of that specific notability, not just because he spent time as head of a big student group. (I had to work hard to keep my POV out of this comment.) Barno 15:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A student club leader. They'll be another one next year. This article overstates his accomplishments and reads like a vanity page. Gamaliel 16:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Dwain 20:52, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete he overstates his accomplishment. weakly autobiographical. vanity. --jonasaurus 21:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete he will be notable when he achieved something in mainstream politics. also vanity. Oliver Keenan 21:29, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge with College Republican National Committee. siafu 23:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete transitory accomplishment that is non-encyclopedic and non-notable. -Splash 01:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Barno, Gamaliel, and Splash. Quale 07:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The Collage Repullican Nat'l Committee president is a notable article. Paul3144 17:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Paul Gourley leads an organization with 120 thousand members in 50 states on 1200+ college campuses, with a 17 million dollar budget in FY2004, which has directly contributed leaders to the Republican Party such as Karl Rove and sitting United States governors. A notable politician. Joseph_T_McCarthy 01:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• First edit. Gamaliel 21 July 2005

Does this mea you now believe it should be kept Gamaliel? Since it appears that you are the one who wrote, "First edit," from the history page. If your not changing your vote then what is the point of making that statement? Dwain 22:29, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

It is common practise to make the life of the closing admin that little bit easier. See WP:VFD and WP:GVFD which says that votes from new users may be discounted and that it is sufficent to mark their edits as such (rather than call them sockpuppets etc). I see no implication that Gamaliel means to vote keep by this edit. -Splash 22:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Why on earth would you think the words "first edit" meant I wanted to change my vote? Gamaliel 07:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Very STRONG Keep This is ridiculous. This is the latest of a string of College Republican articles to be deleted. This national organizations IS notable and therefore its leadership and prominent state federations ARE notable. If the accomplishments of people like Mr. Gourley don't speak for themselves I am not sure what would. Why is this level of scrutiny being applied only to GOP groups? I don't see any push to remove the article on Scott Peterson or other trash articles like the one on Jennifer Wilbanks, which are definitely NOT encyclopediac. If anyone outside of the arrogant cybernerds with the audacity to label the College Republicans simply "a student group" saw the incredible influence they have on Republican politics as noted and the high-profile nature of the campaign to elect their leaders (i.e. Gourley's) nature of College Republicans do, they'd be as appalled as I am. Get some perspective and knowledge. nywalton 23:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC) vote actually by 66.30.36.200

• Do you think insulting people is an effective way to change people's minds? Gamaliel 01:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Sir, the gentleman from NY has a point. That Mr. Gourley's article would even be considered for deletion considering the sheer size of the College Republican organization is evidence enough that certain individuals are trolling on wikipedia, throwing their weight around to try to knock off legitimate articles. Not only should the article be kept, but there shouldn't even need to be debate on this. Joseph_T_McCarthy 11:37, 23 July 2005
    • Or it is evidence that certain individuals have a difference of opinion about what constitutes a legitimate subject for a Wikipedia article. Gamaliel 04:08, 24 July 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.