Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Meehan

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 of the debate was delete Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 15:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Meehan

Not notable. Merely being a candidate does not satisfy WP:BIO. Delete. Skeezix1000 13:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn candidate. Eusebeus 17:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't meet WP:BIO standards yet. feydey 21:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ifnord 23:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Retain, TM passes several tests for inclusion, see here StrangerInParadise 00:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Please do not edit the nomination or other people's comments - thanks. Skeezix1000 17:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Retain, subject is notworthy, jameskpolka (added on his behalf by StrangerInParadise, see below)
• Retain, Subject is a well known figure among a growing demographic of drug policy reformers across the globe. His contributions both on the political front and within the reform movement are certainly noteworthy today and will be even more so a hundred years from now. Considering the current criminalization of drugs has just reached its 91st anniversary, it's clearly an issue that has long term interest and consequences for the public and researchers in the future will find the biographical information on this candidate of great value. (added by Libby Spencer) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.79.132 (talk • contribs)
• Retain, subject is well-known in the worldwide drug policy reform community as being president and frequent public spokesman of NORML.CA, as well as an active participant on many drug policy reform lists and sites in Canada and the U.S. (added by J. Lebowitz 17:04, 17 December 2005, UTC).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackl2400 (talk • contribs)
• Delete per nom --Quasipalm 18:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for retaining article Tim Meehan from StrangerInParadise

• Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events
  • TM is a well-known figure within an emerging area of political endevor, specifically pro-cannabis Canadian politics.
• Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more
  • Repeatedly published and mentioned in various Canadian newspapers
• Verifiability -- Can all information in the article be independently verified now? (some say) 10 years from now?
  • Yes on both counts.
• Expandability -- Will the article ever be more than a stub? Could the perfect article be written on this subject?
  • Tim is still active in Canadian pro-cannabis activism, an area where developments are on-going.
  • Once prohibition of cannabis is repealed, who knows?
• 100 year test -- In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful?
  • Anyone interested in the early history of the pro-cannabis movement in Canada, which presently is itself in a key point of struggle due to its proximity and historic ties with the United States, the principal driver in the global war on cannabis. Also, Ontario ranks just after BC in regards to principal areas in which the struggle to repeal the prohibition of cannabis has taken place.
• Autobiography -- Has this been written by the subject or someone closely involved with the subject?
  • Not by the subject, though he has updated it. The objectivity and neutrality of the article makes the question irrelevant, though I believe the answer to be no.
• Google Test -- Does the subject get lots of hits on Google or another well known search mechanism?
  • Yes.

StrangerInParadise 00:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

TM and his political and social work fundamentally pass the Hundred-Year test. While the last several Canadian federal governments have equivocated over both the decriminalization of marijuana for recreational use and the federal commitment to making marijuana legal and available for medical use, the direction of Canadian history and the will of the Canadian people are clear and obvious. The controversy here over including/deleting a TM article rests on TM's being five to ten years ahead of when the rest of the Canadian body politic will reach his same conclusions. But they will. The Wikipedia community would do well to recognize a political prophet and visionary now, thus educating the public now about a figure whose ideas will be mainstream ten years from now.

posted by jameskpolka/USA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.41.2.202 (talk • contribs)

Relisting this to generate more discussion. Skeezix1000 18:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The above arguments seem to be that: If cannabis reform comes to fruition, then an early activist for that reform will be notable. The Wikipedia community would do well to recognize a political prophet and visionary now, thus educating the public now about a figure whose ideas will be mainstream ten years from now. Is certainly not notability, it's pure conjecture. DeathThoreau 19:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Per DeathThoreau. Otherwise we may create an article on me, in case 10 years from now I became the Space Pope Ultimus the 1st. Flyboy Will 19:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete As Director of communications National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws in Canada he might be notable. Eighteen of the top twenty items on the writings link merely reproduce his letters to the editor. The other two are short Canadian news stories that mention him in passing. The people who created this page should be improving it, not spamming the discussion with bids to keep. Link directly to his most important appearances in respected newspapers, leave out his letters, and list his achievements with your organization. Then maybe we can tell if he's notable. So far from what I've seen, he's not. Durova 19:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The proponents of the article would be better off showing how he is notable through verifiable evidence, such as mention in newspapers, magazines and books. Then I and others could be persuaded to change our minds. Capitalistroadster 21:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, along with all other MPC candidates, into Marijuana Party of Canada or somewhere. -- Mwalcoff 23:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Whatever hey, is that a cookie? Man I'm starving... Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 00:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --- Candidates do not merit articles unless notable for other reasons. There is a lot of speculation on this page, but very few facts as to why this guy is important. 209.202.119.248 14:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• "Whatever" Attack of the internet snobs. Frankly I don't give a shit what you do with it. www.timmeehan.ca
• The current consensus on unelected candidates permits a merged page for "X Party's candidates in Y election". This does create its own set of problems, but unless you're prepared to take on the job of proposing an alternate policy, established consensus stands as the final word whether you like it or not. Merge to Marijuana Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. Bearcat 23:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Where is this consensus defined. I've read the ongoing debate but my take from reading it, was that consensus had not been reached. It looked to me like the debate died before consensus was reached, and a vote is still pending. Is there another discussion that I've missed? Nfitz 00:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Consensus doesn't require a vote; if the discussion dies prematurely, then in the lack of a clearly defined policy statement the results that have actually been applied here in practice stand as the consensus. And that consensus has consistently favoured the merged listpage solution — nobody, to date, has challenged that. Bearcat 00:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
      • But consensus has consistently not been met anytime that a major party candidate, and even some non-major party candidates, comes up for deletion. I'd say consensus was keep them ... and that's what I thought reading that article. Nfitz 00:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete per Capitalistroadster and people trying to flood the discussion with comments of minor relevance. Stifle 02:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well written article on a candidate. We have tons of these. Much of the information in the article I have verified as true. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:14, 22 December 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.