Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2011 September 20
2011 September 22 >

21 September 2011[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Frederick Glaysher (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am appealing the decision of Wikipedia to delete the article on me, “Frederick Glaysher,” in April of 2008 and 21 May 2010, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 21

Current: User:Radon Detection/Frederick Glaysher

Since May 2010, I have published another poem in a Swedish journal, mediterranean, at [1] "Perseus" (August 2010) and other material under Sources and Role in Renewing the Reform Bahai Faith, etc., and The Diplomat. New Emissary. Quoted on Nobel Laureate Kenzaburō Ōe's novel The Silent Cry, as a ‘very profound and provoking novel that goes deep into modern life, East and West." May 27, 2010. [2]

Because of the dominance of Wilmette-Haifan Baha’is, the largest Baha’i denomination on Wikipedia, I believe my appeal can not and will not receive a fair hearing through the normal procedure. Because of the increasing importance of Wikipedia during the last decade, and the Haifan Baha’i determination to keep any article about me off Wikipedia, I believe they have severely damaged the recognition and growth of my career, as a poet and writer, which should be entirely separate from my religious beliefs, though they are “guaranteed” by the First Amendment.

At the time the “Frederick Glaysher” article was under debate in 2008, Wjhonson observed, "The attacks imho are religion-based as this person is a vocal critic of certain Baha'i institutions. There is no evidence that his works are vanity-press publications. The article is fairly new and deserves new eyes to expand it, instead of this pressure by a vested group or a few individuals to suppress it. Wjhonson 4 April 2008" [3]

Wjhonson had also stated,"Their only purpose is to attack Glaysher. This del entry should be voided on that basis solely...."

In addition to Wjhonson, other Wikipedia participants also had misgivings about how the discussion and deletion were conducted. Please refer to the Wikipedia database for details.

The record of my being a “vocal critic of certain Baha’i institutions” can be found on my website The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience, Documenting censorship and suppression of free speech and conscience within the Baha'i Faith since 1998: [4]

Wjhonson created a Wiki page for me on his County Historian Wiki at [5] which has some links to published material that is not on the Wikipedia Radon Dectection/Frederick Glaysher page. The “Frederick Glaysher” article on County Historian has had over 12,882 hits on it during the last 16 months, which I believe demonstrates there’s significant interest in who I am and my career, both as a poet and literary critic and as a reformer within the Bahai religious tradition. Significant new material has also made its way onto the Internet about my work as both a poet and Bahai reformer, though I believe previously sufficient material existed has it not met with fanatical Haifan Baha’i opposition.

In order to help Wikipedia understand the ferocity and deception involved in the treatment I have received from Baha’is who dominate discussion of articles that they perceive to be related to their interests, I believe it is necessary to describe in a few paragraphs the Bahai religious conflict that is taking place behind the scenes on Wikipedia, and which led to the deletion of the “Frederick Glaysher” article.

I have been publicly attacked by Baha’is and slandered in many venues, on and off-line, and as an “apostate” by Moojan Momen in a leading British academic journal: ‘Marginality and Apostasy in the Baha'i Community’" in Religion 37 [2007] 187–209. [6] My published “Response to Takfir” (denunciation of infidels) was published in Religion 38 No 4 2008: [7] Original journal source: [8]

Since the Reform Bahai Faith has often been attacked and slandered in the past by the larger denomination of the Baha'i Faith located in Haifa, Israel and Wilmette, Illinois, as have several other Baha'i denominations, I must point out that I believe the Reform Bahai Faith has also been misrepresented and suppressed on Wikipedia, whenever brief mention was permitted, by the Haifan Baha'is. For documentary evidence of the harassment that several Bahai denominations have regularly experienced from Haifan and Wilmette Bahais, including the Reform Bahai Faith, please visit the website of the Orthodox Bahais who are currently being sued by the dominant Baha’i denomination in the US Court of Appeals, along with two other small Bahai denominations. Contempt Motion by Wilmette NSA against Orthodox Bahá'í Faith: [9]

On February 20, 2009, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals of Northern Illinois vigorously questioned the Haifan Baha'is on their harassment of other denominations, including Reform Bahai. Judge Diane S. Sykes stated that their conduct "Clearly raises some Constitutional concerns." A brief 3-minute official court recording of the proceedings may be listened to at [10] A link is provided on the following page to the original 30-minute US Court recording from which the 3-minute excerpt above is taken, should you wish to verify its authenticity: [11] In either recording, from the Court record, Judge Bauer asked, “How about Reform Baha’i? Can they use that term?" (i.e., the word Bahai)

On November 23, 2010, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the Wilmette-Haifan Baha’is in favor of religious freedom and the First Amendment. The Court’s Opinion may be read directly from its website at

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Public Access to Oral Argument recordings,Opinions 08-2306 : Nat'l Spiritual v. Nat'l Spiritual 2 02/20/2009 02/20/2009 Oral Argument 3 11/23/2010 11/23/2010 Opinion (SYKES) [12]

The Reform Bahai Faith is a peaceful, open, universal interpretation of the spiritual teachings of the founder Baha'u'llah. Knowing that the Reform Bahai Faith has been misrepresented on Wikipedia, when not completely suppressed, I ask you to consider our own understanding of who we are and what we believe, if necessary. About the Reform Bahai Faith [13]

All matters Baha’i aside, my career as a poet and writer is being adversely affected, and I appeal to Wikipedia on that basis for an impartial evaluation and decision. I wish to note that my two books of poems and prose received over twenty-five reviews, several of which are still available on the Internet. Many poets on Wikipedia have had nowhere near that number of reviews, including my other citations, for instance, in an interview with the Nobel Laureate Saul Bellow.

I point out that I am an independent publisher and have received recognition as such from the Poetry Foundation for creatively seeking, advocating, and using the new means of Print On Demand and ebooks. Many of the most distinguished names in literature were self-publishers. Knowledgeable people have never confused self-publishing with vanity publishing. Relevant material may be found at

The Poetry Foundation Report by Rick Stevens: "Technology: Poetry and New Media." January 2009. "Frederick Glaysher, the founder of Earthrise Press, is a dynamic presence among the advocates of self-publishing and adopting the independent music model of direct purchase from artist to consumer." (search > Glaysher) [14]

The Mission of Earthrise Press [15]

Publishing in the Post-Gutenberg Age [16]

If Wikipedia consensus does choose to permit an article on me, I request that consideration be given to “locking” or handling it in some way that will prevent future abuse of it by continuing Baha’i fanaticism directed against me out of religious hatred, of which I’ve been a victim since as early as 1996, for the evidence of which I direct you again to

The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience [17]

Thank you for your careful reconsideration of my appeal.

Frederick Glaysher Books, poems, essays, reviews, interviews, blogs [18]

Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience Documenting censorship and suppression of free speech and conscience within the Baha'i Faith since 1998: [19]

Reform Bahai Faith [20] --Radon Detection (talk) 22:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion The proposed article is a huge puffary peice in complete violation of WP:SPAM. The excessive external links is unbearable. The prose is point of view. The "sources" largely either do not mention the subject, is authored by the subject, or is a trivial mention of the subject. I found an "about" page that appeared to be a primary source, and another "about" that was included as part of a poem. I don't think User:Radon Detection understands what Wikipedia is. His request for "protection" from future abuse is counter to Wikipedia's goals of an open encyclopedia. Protection is a direct result of, not preemptive of vandalism. I can't see any religious bias or suppression in the original AFD nor in the previous DRV. Subject simply isnt notable.--v/r - TP 22:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I'm not seeing any arguments that there was anything inappropriate about the closure; I further caution the subject that Wikipedia is not for personal publishing, CVs, or other self-promotion. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • List of Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards – Relist on AfD. It is quite clear that in the AfD, the "keep" !votes were inferior to the "delete" !votes which were grounded in policy. However, a large amount of new evidence was introduced in this DRV, warranting further discussion of those sources. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deleted without true consensus (3/2 to delete), causes 300 redlinks Crisis.EXE 20:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse undeletionAgreed. The AFD should also have been relisted to produce a better consensus. This article should be restored without prejudice based on the fact that the deleting admin apparently took four delete !votes versus two as "consensus", which it is not.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 21:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The nomination counts as a delete vote, so it was actually 4 v 2 in favour of deletion. Jenks24 (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse undeletion - No true consensus reached. No consensus should default to keeping the article without prejudice. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own close Really, the first keep !vote was not grounded in anything substantial, who did not even argue the central point which was a lack of notability. The second offered a grand, sweeping claim, but with not one shred of evidence to support it, and then argued that the awards could be verified by looking at the website of the body giving the awards. No evidence of any notability at all, the delete side showed this, and was by far the stronger. Courcelles 22:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I can't see how a list of what Wikipedia is not can somehow become notability criteria. WP:NOT does not say 'Wikipedia is everything not on this list'. The second keep is suitably argued against by another editor. All four deletes directly address WP:GNG by themselves and are not refuted. I can't see anyway this could end as a no consensus other than a vote count which it is clear the closing admin did not do. I hate to see 300 redlinks created by deleting this, but AWB can fix that in an hour or so.--v/r - TP 22:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse -- As a 4/2 vote (yes, we need to include the nominator), this could technically be viewed as no consensus, but the keep votes didn't really counter the rationale in the delete ones, and vaguely referred to the existence of sources without actually proving they exist.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Deletion The Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards have been cited frequently by news publications and media outlets to describe a professional wrestler's accolades. Per a google news search,
  • The AFD didn't have any evidence presented because frankly I didn't know it was even nominated until after 300+ redlinks appeared all over wrestler pages. This evidence is more than enough to show that many reliable and notable sources cite the Wrestling Observer awards as a notable measure of a wrestler's accomplishments, enough that the article warrants staying on this site. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 23:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but saying that someone won an award, with no real deeper analysis, cannot count as anything even close to significant.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure it does. Mentions of an award by RS are fine, though I wonder if it might not be brought back as a section of another article, if the individual notability of the awards are in question. Jclemens (talk) 00:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • On December 30, 1988, The Chicago Sun-Times described Big Bubba Rogers, or the Big Bossman, as the Wrestling Observer's Most Improved Wrestler of 1987
  • The Sun (United Kingdom) described Bryan Danielson as four-time Most Outstanding Wrestler and five-time Best Technical Wrestler per the Wrestling Observer.[22]
  • The Montgomery Advertiser also mentioned Danielson's accolades above, as well as being owner of 2007's Match of the Year award.
  • UGO Networks also mentioned Danielson's Best Tech award.[23]
  • In the Philippine Star, they described MMA fighter Georges St. Pierre as "2008-2009 Most Outstanding Fighter by the Wrestling Observer Newsletter"[24]
  • Yahoo! Sports mentions Karo Parisyan vs Diego Sanchez was WON's 2006 MMA match of the year.[25]
  • A second article from Yahoo! Sports with another match of the year noted.[26]
  • Sports Illustrated also mentioned the awards. "Jackson's fight with Lindland placed seventh in the Wrestling Observer Newsletter's voting for fight of the year. Henderson is known for a more exciting style than Lindland, and Saturday's high stakes clash could be a classic confrontation."[27]
  • The Wrestling Observer Newsletter Awards have been cited by tons of publications to describe a wrestler's accolades since the 1980s. If "well these are nothing" is all it takes to refute all the references I found, then I give up. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 00:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voters were asked by Suriel1981, "No offense, but who exactly considers these to be "the top wrestling awards given by a third party publication" and is there any evidence for it?" and I answered, which apparently fell on deaf ears to the editor that asked for the evidence in the first place below. If the Wrestling Observer's awards are not notable, then neither is Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame, a list that was featured on the front page for Wikipedia. Admin Jclemens earlier agreed that these references should be accepted and not outright ignored, but if mob rule wants it deleted, there's nothing further I can possibly do to save this article. The WON Hall of Fame apparently did enough to pass WP:LISTN, and the mass variety of publications and media outlets that have over the years since as far back as 1988 specifically referred to WON's awards to describe a wrestler's career accomplishments is more than enough for me to satisfy LISTN. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 17:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The Wrestling Observer's awards are considered the most (or second most, maybe Pro Wrestling Illustrated has a say) prestigious awards in pro wrestling."
By who? ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 19:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've already given my opinion above (endorse undeletion), but even if you don't see a problem with the AfD closure, common sense has to kick in at this point. 17 reliable sources have been identified in this DRV, which more than prove the case for notability. The case for restoration has been proven, so GNG indicates that the article should be restored. Maybe, according to the letter of the law, the closing administrator for this AfD might not agree that a DRV case has been proven. A case for re-creating the article has undoubtedly been proven, however, so restoring the article upon the condition that these sources are added is clearly the outcome endorsed by both the spirit of the law and Wikipedia notability guidelines. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "17 reliable sources ... more than prove the case for notability." you seem to be suffering the same problem. The standard in WP:GNG is non-trivial coverage. These don't provide non-trivial coverage, they provide passing mentions. You need some references where someone has written about the awards themselves, directly and in some level of detail, not sources which say x received one. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 08:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Come on, these are awards here we're talking about. And the article is simply a list of awards given! So if the awardees receiving the award are mentioned in numerous reliable sources, that should be enough, because that's all that is going into the article, isn't it? Starship.paint (talk) 10:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The consensus of the xFD was that the awards themselves needed to be notable, that's the context of the DRV discussion. I guess the question would be why would we have a list of recipients of an award whilst not having an article on the award itself? I don't think you can separate the two. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 10:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Coverage of professional wrestling on Wikipedia is dominated by tunnel vision and recentism, not to mention a "path of least resistance" approach, even though such complaints certainly aren't unique to PW-related articles. Obviously, it's far easier to dig up a listing of award winners and rehash it here than it is to actually research the history of the awards. When I first read this article, I couldn't help but notice that many of the wrestling promotions listed for the early award winners were just flat out incorrect. This may be due to the fact that I was watching pro wrestling in 1980, when the awards began. There's probably not too many contributors to PW-related articles on Wikipedia for whom the same could be said.RadioKAOS (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse undeletion There's nothing more to say really, I still can't believe it was deleted in the first place.--Deely talk 15:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Au contraire, there is more to say. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 19:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - IMO, the overall problem is rooted more in fanboy hatred of Dave Meltzer than in the notability of his body of work. Even though they're known as the Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards, the awards actually predate the existence of the WON, and prior discussions established that in spite of concerns, the WON qualifies as notable. I smelled a rat when the first I heard of the Afd was following the actual deletion of the article. The discussion the second time around centered around two editors, with very few of the editors participating the first time having been involved. I normally don't follow the list of wrestling-related deletion discussions, especially lately since it has been dominated by discussions of current WWE tag teams who no one will give a shit about ten or twenty years from now, being debated by individuals who refuse to acknowledge the notability of numerous truly historically important tag teams. Anyway, tangents aside, as for notability? I haven't reviewed any sources which may be cited here. I don't know about the present day, but historically, mentions of WON (and by extension, the awards) in "reliable sources" were mostly due to journalists with close personal or professional ties to Meltzer.RadioKAOS (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"IMO, the overall problem is rooted more in fanboy hatred of Dave Meltzer than in the notability of his body of work."
Well, there goes WP:AGF right out the window. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 19:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No offense RadioKAOS, but could you clarify your vote? Do you wish to restore it or leave it deleted? Do you think it's notable? I don't exactly understand after reading what you wrote. Starship.paint (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He seems to be advocating a continuation of the AfD--maybe just revert the closure and let it run for another week so that a more clear-cut consensus can be reached. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of award lists (response to Starship.paint) - Compare and contrast with List of Academy Award-winning films. That too is just a list of awards but is an offshoot of a main article which provides background, history and thoroughly demonstrates the notability of the subject matter - the media write about the awards themselves, not just mentions of who won what. This is not the case for the Wrestling Observer awards. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 05:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But the article is just that: a list. Why can't it exist without the main article? I looked at Academy Awards and a lot of the content in the article doesn't apply to this Wrestling Observer award... Statuette? Nomination? Ceremony? Venues? Associated Events? Starship.paint (talk) 05:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If awards themselves aren't demonstrated to be notable then a list of whom they've been awarded to isn't notable. That's fundamentally my stance. (i.e. the Oscars have been shown to be notable, so lists based on who they've been given to are fine) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 06:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that the awards are not notable, I think they are notable due to all the reliable secondary sources mentioning them. It's just that I'm saying that a lot of the stuff from the Academy Award article cannot be 'transferred' to these awards, thus to compare them for one having a "main article" and this one doesn't have a "main article" therefore it cannot be a sub-article, I don't think it's quite fair. Point is a lot of the stuff that would go in the main article doesn't apply to the WO awards, that's why it doesn't have a main article, there's no statue to talk about, no ceremony... Starship.paint (talk) 09:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment step away from these particular awards for a second and consider the following examples (1) Many trade associations give awards to their members. These generally appear to be back-patting exercises and are of no real significance (e.g. best newcomer, when there was only one new member of the association during the period defined). The companies who receive these awards will often list them on their website and as part of a company description which may then be repeated elsewhere. Should wikipedia host a list of winners of those trade association awards? (2) Through my work I sometimes do training courses, these almost invariably end up issuing a certificate, just for turning up. If I started listing those out on my various profiles and so do others (assuming we are notable), would we have an article of winners of certificate x? I would hope everyone would agree for example (2) that not, and I suspect for example (1) most would agree not, so at what point would we think such a list was warranted? Surely it has to be related to the notability of the award itself? --82.19.4.7 (talk) 08:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your hypothetical example is flawed because these examples you provided, they were never listed in Toronto Star, The Sun, Yahoo Sports, Sports Illustrated, SLAM! Wrestling, Phillippine Star, Pro Wrestling Torch and the Montgomery Adviser. You certainly have not considered the case for notability given that the awards have been given credit to by numerous reliable wrestling-focused (Pro Wrestling Torch) and mainly non-wrestling focused (Toronto Star) sources, . Starship.paint (talk) 09:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? So you've taken my hypothetical and rather than assuming that they would be included in mainstream media, you've decided that they won't and so can be shot down. A sort of reverse strawman, "I'll go against the common sense meaning of your hypothetical to suit my purpose". Industry awards often get tagged onto company details within magazine articles (say). Extracts of peoples resume incorporated into articles could easily include some award that person decides to ascribe. That sort of thing happens all the time. I already get your point, you think these awards are important and that's why people refer to them. I disagree, not that they are important (on that I have no opinion), but on the point that merely being mentioned makes them important, particularly in an area where hype and publicity are order of the day. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 13:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Implying that a pat-on-the-back certificate from work is even relevant shows that you are unwilling to agree in a reasonable I don't know where you work, but it's obviously unimportant for the purposes of this discussion. Let's take a teenager working at Wal-Mart. He goes to a two-hour "training" session (get a booklet, read through it, talk about feelings, go home). Does his "accomplishment" get worldwide media coverage? Of course not, because you are just trying to derail the discussion. The Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards get worldwide media coverage, so they are obviously notable. This discussion should never have had to take place, and you're just being disruptive for the sake of being disruptive. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So ignore half of the analogy, industry awards which appear everywhere. Then do the same as above and ignore the common sense meaning of the analogy and make up your own to make a strawman. No one has said some random kid in walmart that's your construction (so if anyone is trying to derail the discussion it's those trying to build the strawmen arguments rather than actually trying to understand where the difference in opinion lies). If there are people who are notable enough to get coverage in third party reliable sources and all of them include in their bio that particular walmart certificate, that's the closer analogy to the situation here. "The Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards get worldwide media coverage" - and that's the problem, everyone is asking you to show that coverage - i.e. coverage of the award where are the third party sources talking directly in detail about the awards (not lists of winners, not talking about people and noting they won the award, but coverage about the award itself). --82.19.4.7 (talk) 10:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a point which has still not been addressed by those in favour of restoration. I have yet to see any reliable secondary sources which say "The Wrestling Observer Newsletter Awards are this and they are important because of this". ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 11:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Raymond A. Watson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Update version at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Conservatism/Incubator/Raymond_A._Watson. Closing administrator was in error in determining the consensus. Also new non-local sources have been added to meet some of the objections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeLouis (talk • contribs)

Thanks to the editor who cleaned up the mess I made just above. I am uncertain what to do next. To me, it is obvious that Mr. Watson is Notable. In the original discussion, it was said by others that he was not Notable because he was just a county supervisor and had no executive authority (or something like that: I am paraphrasing). You would have to go to the Discussion page for the closure to see both sides of the argument, but I don't know how to find that page. What happens now? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I found it. You click on XFD above, and you get to that page. I'm sorry, but I didn't know what XFD meant until I blindly clicked there! Oh, well . . . GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing admin comments I dont think I was in error closing that AFD. I'd be surprised if anyone disagreed. That said, there are 5 new sources and the user claims to have demonstrated more than local significance so I recommended he come here.--v/r - TP 13:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summing up. The criterion is "Just being an elected local official . . . does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article' ". I believe that the criterion is met and ask for the article to be made live. Oh, yes, if you look at the original discussion you will find others who agreed with me. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question there are a lot of sources in the article (which is of course a good thing). Could you provide 2-3 sources which you believe are significant and don't run afoul of WP:LOCAL? I'm not a fan of arguing that local sources aren't acceptable, but that seems to be the conclusion that was reached in the AfD so an overturn of that would ideally involve new non-local sources. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Out of curiosity, how can mentions of a person run afoul of WP:LOCAL, which is about places? I've seen WP:LOCAL cited a number of times in this manner, which makes me wonder if maybe it should point to a different essay or guideline. Jclemens (talk) 00:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first line of that says "A community contains places and people, including but not limited to ... people...that may be well-known locally, but little-known outside the community in question."--v/r - TP 02:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, the problem is that A) the essay is supposed to be about "places of local interest" and B) it's an essay. But it seems to be the reason we deleted the article for that reason for better or for worse and it had a majority. The nom states they've added new non-local sources, I just want them to clearly indicate which new sources they view as non-local... Hobit (talk) 03:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well the in a nutshell box says "An article about a local place or person may be created...", that's the way things develop, it started off focussing on places and has morphed since, just like many other policies, guidelines or essays, can't see that as a big problem, merely a reason the page should be renamed. The real question in cases like this is how well does the logic being applied relate to general accepted standards (custom, policy, guidlines etc.) and the material in a given case. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 08:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nonlocal sources (not within Kern County) are: ^ Bureau of Land Management ^ Mark Grossi, "Air Fee Misses Dirtiest District," The Modesto Bee, October 29, 2010 ^ Steve Chawkins, "Panel Tells Mariposa to Give Up Cityhood," Los Angeles Times, June 10, 2011, page 1. ^ "County Starts Allocating Money for Prisoners' Shift," McClatchy-Tribune Business News, August 31, 2011

Non-Bakersfield sources, but still within Kern County, are:

^ Maggie Van Ostrand, "Local Personalities," Frazier Park Online ^ Patric Hedlund, "Election Results: Watson Keeps His Seat," The Mountain Enterprise, June 6, 2008 ^ Map, "Kern Supervisors District Being Redrawn," Taft Midway Driller, July 13, 2011 ^ "Kern Speaking Out Against Proposed Oil Tax," Taft Midway Driller, January 8, 2010 With photo. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • McClatchy News Service. I might add that articles printed in The Californian are routinely fed to the McClatchy News Service, which transmits them all over the country. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lack of consensus. Looking back at the original discussion — certainly when two other editors agreed with the original editor (me) that the article should not have been deleted, well, there certainly was no consensus to delete. Just a thought. Thanks again. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - I was notified of this discussion by the RfC notification bot. I don't see any reason this is an RfC as opposed to a regular deletion review. Can someone explain that to me? LadyofShalott 06:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because GeorgeLouis feels a 6-2 !vote with discussion strongly favoring delete should have been closed as no consensus because two editors agreed with his position with passing comments while those opposed to his opinion strongly disputed it and is disappointed there have been few comments here opposing my delete close.--v/r - TP 14:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Well, that's not really an appropriate use of RfC. LadyofShalott 19:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much. I've removed the tag above. lifebaka++ 21:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm borderline between endorse and relist at this point. I think the underling reason for deletion is fairly bogus (LOCAL is an essay) but the people have spoken and in large enough numbers closing as delete was the best choice. That said, there are new sources listed which might be enough and the probably should go to AfD. Hobit (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • After looking at the sources a bit more, I think there are enough new sources that this should really head back to AfD, so relist. I would encourage GeorgeLouis to try to reduce his bandwidth in any new AfD. The only issue that's going to matter is sources and people sometimes get a bit grumpy if you spam the discussion. Hobit (talk) 06:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More than one way to determine consensus

Some of my Wikipedia editing friends who have made denigrating comments about the inherent Un-Notability of county supervisors may have been unaware of the fact that the Notability of said supervisors has already been established by consensus, many times over, as witnessed by the following list of supervisors, none of whom were ever anointed with the grace of being elected to a higher position; that is to say, state legislator or Congress member. There is another a Kern County supervisor whom I have placed first on the following list; Mary K. Shell's proudest accomplishment was a diversion of funds to establish a lighted soccer field—and bless her for that. (I have simply ignored many other supervisors with separate articles, some extensive and some just stubs — Los Angeles County and Fairfield County, Virginia, apparently are blessed with a trove of WP editors who have favored us with separate stories on their favorite supervisor sons and daughters.)

Mary K. Shell, Kern County

John_Gioia Contra Costa County

Keith_Carson, Alameda County

Roberta_MacGlashan, Sacramento County

Don Nottoli, Sacramento County

Janet Nguyen, Orange County

Kenneth Hahn, Los Angeles County

Dave Pine, San Mateo County

Sidney T. Graves, Los Angeles County

Samuel Arbuckle, Los Angeles County

Julian A. Chavez, Los Angeles County

Francisco P. Temple, Los Angeles County

Manuel Requena, Los Angeles County

Juan Sepulveda, Los Angeles County

Ken Yeager, Santa Clara County

Linda Smyth. Fairield County, Virginia

Cathy Hudgins, Fairfield County, Virginia

Francis Mellus, Los Angeles County

Frank Koehn, Bayfield County, Wisconsin

Warren Widener, Alameda County

William Heeser, Mendocino County

Michael D. Antonovich, Los Angeles County

John Cook (Virginia politician), Faifield County, Virginia

Lee Holloway, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

Matt Gonzalez, San Francisco County

Ann Mallek, Albemarle County, Virginia

Ignazio Vella, Sonoma County

Gregg Moore, Eau Claire County, Wisconsin

Liz Kniss, Santa Clara County

Jimmie R. Yee, Sacramento County

Roger Hedgecock, San Diego County

Donna Smith, Dubuque County, Iowa

Anderson W. Brown, Oneida County, Wisconsin

John George (California politician), Alameda County

Jeff McKay, Fairfax County, Virginia

Ruben Barrales, San Mateo County

Sincerely, your faithful correspondent, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's certainly no "inherent unnotability" for county execs, or indeed for anything I can think of. But that doesn't mean they are inherently notable either. Sure, plenty of them pass the notability guidelines, but the difference between, say, a congressperson and a county official is that the congressperson's position proves they are notable regardless of coverage, while significant coverage is needed to prove the notability of the county official.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, my good Yaksar, you get my point; shall we keep the discussion then to a matter of whether Mr. Watson has received "significant coverage" instead of whether a county supervisor is worthy of WP inclusion? It is my opinion that, yes, he has received "significant coverage." What do you think? Because if there is more coverage needed to be deemed significant, I may be able to find some. Mind you, it will be in local news outlets and not in the New York Times. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going down the list
Shell was mayor of Bakersfield, pop. 347,000; we've always considered mayors of cities of anywhere near that size as notable for the purposes of Wikipedia. Given that, the use of the soccer field might seem disingenuous, although, to be fair, she did in fact say just that herself. The article needs a little de-spamming. Gioia has significant coverage; Carson is I think borderline & if this is deleted, that should be nom. also; MacGlashan & Nottoli, should be deleted, unless we do think all holding such positions as notable; Nguyen cannot stand without further refs, which may be available--too much of it is uncited opinion; Hahn' is very notable as shown by the sources; Pine has sufficient refs but is rather over-written; Gravesis notable because of the conviction; Arbuckle is an historic figure but needs sources; Chavez,Temple , Requena, Sepulveda , Mellus are historic figures; Yeager is borderline; Smyth & Hudgins seem non-notable  ; Koehn borderline; Widener mayor of Berkeley; Heeser historic  ; Antonovich & Gonzalez sufficiently sourced ; Cook Holloway, Mallek, Moore borderline to different degrees; Kniss non-notable; Yee a mayor, Hedgecock despite insufficient sourcing notable, possibly independently of the position; Smith, Brown, George , McKay non-notable; Barrales independently notable. This gives 16 notable, 17 not.
  • Restore I think it depends on the county. In large California counties, such a high proportion are notable that perhaps they can all be assumed to be near enough for an article. Elsewhere, it seems not the case for Virginia. I think there is a very great advantage in consistency. But as for considering them all notable , there are 3,000 counties, with 3 to 5 commissioners (tho some have no executive bodies at all); this is about 10,000 people. We can deal with it , but I'm not sure we should. My suggestion is to set a population size, perhaps varying from state to state and period to period above which there is notability & below which is has to be shown. For mayors, I think we now do ≥25,000. country board can have the same powers, but there are more of them, so I'd say ≥100,000. As it happens, thats the avg. population of US counties. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, that is an argument appropriate for an WP:AFD. The AFD is over. Do you have an argument (like below) suggesting I determined it wrong? This isn't AFD part 2 here.--v/r - TP 18:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Nevermind, I forgot this was a DRV with significant improvement/changes in a draft.--v/r - TP 18:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it really matters, but I my comment below wasn't intended to suggest that you determined consensus incorrectly, but that the opinions you based the close on were no longer accurate/relevant. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC) [reply]
  • Restore, and relist if desired. Never mind general principles about county commissioners, let's look at the specific case, There were seven delete arguments in that debate. The first two mention only WP:POLITICIAN, which nobody is arguing that he meets, and ignore WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC, while the fourth simply states that the "subject doesn't appear to meet" the guidelines without explaining why. The remaining four are more convincing, but all are based on the premise that the only coverage is local to the city. Since this has been shown not to be the case, I don't think these can be used as the basis for this article not to exist, although they were clearly stronger in this respect when the debate was closed. So that debate isn't enough to mean that the new improved article can't be restored. (Personally I think he meets WP:BASIC, but that's an argument for a future AfD.) Alzarian16 (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraph added, with sources

Watson keeps making news. I've added a new paragraph from a story that just broke, about methamphetamine, with two sources. You can see it at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Conservatism/Incubator/Raymond_A._Watson#Highlights. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the Highlights list is remotely encyclopedic ... Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The section isn't brilliant, but none of the content in it seems to fail any of the three bullet points of WP:NOTNEWS - it isn't first-hand journalism, or breaking news, and Watson certainly isn't notable for one event (whether or not he's notable at all is a point to debate, but not relevant to article content). If we drop the bolded headers, rename the section to something less POV and reduce the number of quotes most of it could probably be retained, although I agree that right now it's given undue weight. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore  AfD was excessively influenced by the idea that the topic was only a county supervisor, not acknowledging that he was also chairman of the board (for one year) with there being no county executive.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_September_21&oldid=1147870766"