Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Ufford-Chase
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, and cleanup. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 02:34Z
[edit] Rick Ufford-Chase
Non-notable person --Gabi S. 13:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for [1] and [2] (and probably others, these were found in under a minute). Please say more than "non-notable" in the nomination - without reasoning, it's meaningless. Trebor 13:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom.Weak keep ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 14:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Please provide reasoning. Delete per nom is useless in a case where the nom doesn't have a proper argument (simply saying something is "non-notable" doesn't count). Trebor 15:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Per WP:V: The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- I found reliable sources. What's your point? Trebor 16:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Per WP:V: The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Trebor whose links include an AP article about the person. Akihabara 15:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - has got some news coverage as found by Trebor, so notable enough per WP:BIO. Jayden54 16:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep - sources have been provided. Moderator of a national denomination (PCUSA) is an automatic assertion of notability. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Why I think it should be deleted. I've read through WP:N and WP:BIO and this person fails most notability tests. The few sources that wrote about him might be enough for verifiability, but are not enough to make him notable. The articles do not amount to significant press coverage. No other authors, scholars, or journalists gave him any attention. Notability is generally permanent - this person does not have any frequent coverage. He didn't make any widely recognized contribution that is part of any historical record, and clearly fails the 100-year tests. I don't see any reason to keep it. --Gabi S. 23:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- Similarly to the other article, I think you're misunderstanding notability. Notabiliy means "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person". This person has. What is "significant press coverage" - significant is a subjective word which is why it is not included in notability. Notability is generally permanent means there is no need for frequent coverage - once notable, always notable. The 100-year test is not an established guideline for inclusion. The reason to keep is sufficient verifiable information to construct an article which is not in contradiction with WP:NOT - essentially the meaning of notability. Trebor 23:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- Significant press coverage is definitely a criterion for notability, see WP:BIO. The 100-year tests are widely used in Wikipedia when deciding if articles about a person should be deleted or not, although it's not an official policy because there is no complete concensus about it. And most importantly, notability should equal importance in some way. Non-notable persons and companies have to be listed under "List of whatever", without an individual article. --Gabi S. 09:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Directly from WP:N: "It is not synomyous with fame or importance". I'm sorry, but the guideline disagrees with you - unless, of course, you count "importance" as being noted in multiple non-trivial independent sources. In relation to "significant press coverage", it says "All of these criteria are in fact simply special cases of the general primary criterion". Thus if it passes the primary criterion (which it does), it is notable. Explain to me how the person has not "been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person". Trebor 13:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Being notable as you define it is necessary for being included in Wikipedia, but not sufficient. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fighters + Lovers. --Gabi S. 08:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- See my other reply. What else does there need to be to make it sufficient (because you seem to think it is a subjective measurement of "importance" or being "well-known")? Trebor 08:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Being notable as you define it is necessary for being included in Wikipedia, but not sufficient. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fighters + Lovers. --Gabi S. 08:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Directly from WP:N: "It is not synomyous with fame or importance". I'm sorry, but the guideline disagrees with you - unless, of course, you count "importance" as being noted in multiple non-trivial independent sources. In relation to "significant press coverage", it says "All of these criteria are in fact simply special cases of the general primary criterion". Thus if it passes the primary criterion (which it does), it is notable. Explain to me how the person has not "been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person". Trebor 13:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Significant press coverage is definitely a criterion for notability, see WP:BIO. The 100-year tests are widely used in Wikipedia when deciding if articles about a person should be deleted or not, although it's not an official policy because there is no complete concensus about it. And most importantly, notability should equal importance in some way. Non-notable persons and companies have to be listed under "List of whatever", without an individual article. --Gabi S. 09:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Similarly to the other article, I think you're misunderstanding notability. Notabiliy means "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person". This person has. What is "significant press coverage" - significant is a subjective word which is why it is not included in notability. Notability is generally permanent means there is no need for frequent coverage - once notable, always notable. The 100-year test is not an established guideline for inclusion. The reason to keep is sufficient verifiable information to construct an article which is not in contradiction with WP:NOT - essentially the meaning of notability. Trebor 23:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- Why I think it should be deleted. I've read through WP:N and WP:BIO and this person fails most notability tests. The few sources that wrote about him might be enough for verifiability, but are not enough to make him notable. The articles do not amount to significant press coverage. No other authors, scholars, or journalists gave him any attention. Notability is generally permanent - this person does not have any frequent coverage. He didn't make any widely recognized contribution that is part of any historical record, and clearly fails the 100-year tests. I don't see any reason to keep it. --Gabi S. 23:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete This needs a massive re-write, I couldn't figure out what I was reading about until the end of the 2nd paragraph. The notability needs to be emphasized, as one who could care less about this denomination needs to know why being an moderator is important. SkierRMH,00:04, 24 December 2006 (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.
