Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Kirby Delauter: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:03, 17 March 2015 editChed (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users64,984 edits Kirby Delauter: ce← Previous edit Revision as of 20:06, 17 March 2015 edit undoDoncram (talk | contribs)203,830 edits revising at top to state this is where AFD about Kirby Delauter is happening, rather than at WP:AN, being slightly bold, but this is where discussion has been going on. Will note at wp:AN, also.Next edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
===]=== ===]===
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|O}}


:{{la|Kirby Delauter}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks"></span>) :{{la|Kirby Delauter}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks"></span>)
:({{Find sources|Kirby Delauter}}) :({{Find sources AFD|Kirby Delauter}})


Please see ]. It is requested all comments be made there. <small>]</small> 15:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC) ::Note: This is where AFD discussion about Kirby Delauter is happening. Before this AFD was opened, there was an "informal" discussion about this topic at ], which is still available (has not been archived) as of now. No further comments were posted there after editor {{U|Cunard}}'s first posted here (in the first post after this page was started by {{U|NE Ent}}, and after Cunard suggested there that AFD should be done here. I'm boldly asserting this is indeed where AFD discussion is going on, and striking out suggestion to discuss there instead. Please do discuss here! --]]] 20:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


:<s>Please see ]. It is requested all comments be made there. <small>]</small> 15:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)</s> ]]] 20:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)]
---- ----



Revision as of 20:06, 17 March 2015

Kirby Delauter

Kirby Delauter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This is where AFD discussion about Kirby Delauter is happening. Before this AFD was opened, there was an "informal" discussion about this topic at Informal Afd on Administrator's Noticeboard, which is still available (has not been archived) as of now. No further comments were posted there after editor Cunard's first posted here (in the first post after this page was started by NE Ent, and after Cunard suggested there that AFD should be done here. I'm boldly asserting this is indeed where AFD discussion is going on, and striking out suggestion to discuss there instead. Please do discuss here! --doncram 20:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Please see Informal Afd on Administrator's Noticeboard. It is requested all comments be made there. NE Ent 15:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Link to the draft article: Draft:Kirby Delauter.

Link to the DRV: Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 8#Kirby Delauter.

Link to the WP:AN thread: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 8#Kirby Delauter and Draft:Kirby Delauter.

This AfD should be closed on or after 24 March 2015 since it was not formally started until 17 March 2015.

Cunard (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


Since "Kirby Delauter" is a redirect, the AfD notice would likely be better served by placing it on the draft IMO. — Ched :  ?  18:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The opening comment I believe refers to WP:NOHARM, in which it also states: As for articles that do not conform to our basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and using reliable sources), keeping them actually can do more harm than one realizes – it sets a precedent that dictates that literally anything can go here. ...
  • Therefore I must regretfully maintain my keep redirect and delete draft !vote per WP:BLP1E, WP:NPOL and IMO it fails WP:GNG. I do applaud Cunard for his research writing, and efforts; and I acknowledge that he was able to find information regarding W.F. Delauter & Son, and Delauter's personal life. Still - I just don't see it as being notable by our standards on wiki. Sorry. — Ched :  ?  18:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not using WP:NOHARM as the basis for keeping the article. I am responding to this comment:

    I don't like to close as "keep salted", since there's interest among non-admins in reading it and taking stock of it first, per Diogenes above. Also I don't like to close it as "unsalt" (=recreate in some form), since that would mean the article was in mainspace for probably at least a week, and we're not in the business of shaming people for doing a stupid (not heinous, not illegal, but stupid) thing. As most of you know, the wikipedia bio is normally the first google hit on a person, and being a politician (albeit a low-profile one, without notability outside the one event), Kirby Delauter may well get googled. We're not and should not be the village stocks.

    There is no "shaming" here. Misplaced Pages is not being the "village stocks" here.

    Why do you believe that a subject who has received significant biographical coverage from The Baltimore Sun, the largest newspaper in his state (link to the article), prior to the January 2015 incident fails WP:BLP1E, WP:NPOL, and WP:GNG? The guidelines do not say what you think or want them to say.

    Cunard (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah .. ok, gotcha on the "noharm" thing. Well, I just don't see anything that makes him notable is all. At best, that ill-considered remark may have given him his 15 minutes of fame, but I don't see anything beyond that (BLP1E) which makes the article encyclopedic. Lots of people have their own business - but the guy who owns the local hardware store isn't going to get an article here. To me, no matter how much lipstick you put on it, in the end, it's still just the other white meat that goes great with eggs at breakfast. Sure, maybe the "Draft" isn't vandalized right now, but once it's in mainspace - I think it will be a magnet for it. I could find plenty of articles that use the term "Lewinsky" as a term for oral sex - but it would never stand up as an article. (although that Santorum one managed - but I digress). The bottom line for me is that he just doesn't pass muster on the notability end. Hey - if it gets kept - more power to you, but I can't support a "keep" vote in my own mind. Sorry. — Ched :  ?  20:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Categories: