Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Kelly (Freeholder) (2nd nomination)
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 Delete. Walton Need some help? 16:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Joe Kelly (Freeholder) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Non notable local politician. Four hits from the local paper does not rise to the level of notability expected here. No improvement to the article since August 2006. DarkAudit 14:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing administrator The nominator, as part of a series of bad faith nominations, has submitted this AfD, despite the fact that previous AfDs on this and related articles submitted by this same individual have resulted in decisions to keep articles in question. On top of the clear efforts to subvert consensus, the nominator has stooped to soliciting votes, actions that are almost certainly in violation of WP:Canvassing. I strongly recommend that this AfD be withdrawn, given that the process has been thoroughly contaminated by the nominator. As to the definition of votestacking provided at WP:CANVASSING, Votestacking is sending mass talk messages out to editors who are on the record with a specific opinion (such as via a userbox or other user categorization) and informing them of a current or upcoming vote. In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an AFD or CFD), it is similarly unacceptable to send mass talk messages to editors that expressed only a particular viewpoint on the previous debate, such as only "Keep" voters or only "Delete" voters. It seems undeniable that this line has been crossed. Alansohn 04:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to note The record will also show that this 'solicitation' consisted of contacting all of two (2) editors who were already active participants in these discussions. As the relevant portion of WP:CANVAS shows (quoted below), the Arbitration Committee sees contacting only two people as 'common practice'. I have agreed to refrain from contacting anyone else regarding these AfDs, but have still been accused of acting in bad faith. DarkAudit 04:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As no source was provided for the only "four hits" claim, a check at www.newslibrary.com using "Joe Kelly Freeholder" found a few dozen, about ten time the number claimed in the nomination. I'll check when I can on LexisNexis which should have a few dozen more. number Multiple, non-trivial reliable and verifiable sources are provided to establish notability under the WP:BIO guideline, the only relevant Wikipedia policy that addresses such articles. DarkAudit attempted to have the article deleted eight months ago, and clear consensus was that the article met any and all qualifications to Keep as is. As such, the claim that the article has not been improved in eight months is more irrelevant than usual. This is yet another attempt to override a clear consensus. Alansohn 19:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Source was Google News for 'Joe Kelly Freeholder'. Standards change. Policies change. You seek absolutes and results set in stone. You're not going to get that on Wikipedia. What is acceptable today may be unacceptable tomorrow, and vice versa. If all you're going to come up with is another stack of newspaper articles from one paper, I urge you to reconsider. I have asked a number of educators about this, leaving out specifics, of course. They say it's iffy, but even when the incidents are unrelated, using a single newspaper as the only reference is frowned upon. DarkAudit 01:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Did you just type the words "standards change?" What happened to your mantra of ignore all rules, when that was convenient. Can you point out exactly which standards changed that entitles you to undermine an established consensus with a clear and undoubted keep at your previous failed AfD. Again, talk to all these supposed educators and you can have them change WP:BIO to match your original research. Until then, all you're doing is taking yet another bite when you were completely rejected last time around, a practice that's frowned upon. Which policy are you following / ignoring this time? Alansohn 02:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I invoked WP:IAR to show you that your demands for policies set in stone will not be met, and cannot be met. All of Wikipedia are evolving documents, up to an including the guidelines. What may have met with a weak consensus eight months ago, eight weeks ago, or even eight hours ago, may or may not meet with a similar result now. A keep result in August may or may not meet with similar results. The article was flawed then, and I said so. The article was not edited even a single time since then. Be Bold should not mean fighting to the last man in an AfD while the article withers and dies from neglect, no matter what the outcome of the AfD. You asked for 'time'. You got it, and did nothing with it. If you had no intention of doing any improving of the article, as it is so readily apparent, it wouldn't have mattered if I'd waited any more than I have. The 'consensus' you keep trying to throw in my face over these articles were in no way based on the merits of the articles themselves. They were solely based on the lack of a cooling off period before they were re-nominated. This time there was a cooling off period. You squandered that time. No, there's no policy on how long a cooling off policy should be, and there probably won't be one. That is not relevant. What is relevant is that the majority of Wikipedia editors do not feel that a local politician who fails to gain significant notice outside the borders of their home district warrants an article. They use WP:BIO as their guide, then make their own judgment accordingly. The editors make Wikipedia, not the policies. You're asking Wikipedia to stop changing. To stop evolving. To stop growing. To stop, period. DarkAudit 02:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I agree that Wikipedia is non-static. The problem is that the changes that you have claimed at WP:BIO between your previously rejected AfD and now just don't exist. I expect that you can provide clear examples of the policy changes to WP:BIO between the time that your previous failed AfD was rejected and your current attempt at undermining consensus. Please read the previous AfD and tell me that you can honestly believe that the previous AfD was not on the merits of the article. We have made Wikipedia policy and we reached consensus, one article at a time, and it has been reached for this one. You just stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that, even after having only been able to get only one, lone individual to agree with you. How big does the margin have to be to get you to accept consensus? You are following WP:IAR to the letter. If everyone followed your lead, all we would have is anarchy. Alansohn 03:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I invoked WP:IAR to show you that your demands for policies set in stone will not be met, and cannot be met. All of Wikipedia are evolving documents, up to an including the guidelines. What may have met with a weak consensus eight months ago, eight weeks ago, or even eight hours ago, may or may not meet with a similar result now. A keep result in August may or may not meet with similar results. The article was flawed then, and I said so. The article was not edited even a single time since then. Be Bold should not mean fighting to the last man in an AfD while the article withers and dies from neglect, no matter what the outcome of the AfD. You asked for 'time'. You got it, and did nothing with it. If you had no intention of doing any improving of the article, as it is so readily apparent, it wouldn't have mattered if I'd waited any more than I have. The 'consensus' you keep trying to throw in my face over these articles were in no way based on the merits of the articles themselves. They were solely based on the lack of a cooling off period before they were re-nominated. This time there was a cooling off period. You squandered that time. No, there's no policy on how long a cooling off policy should be, and there probably won't be one. That is not relevant. What is relevant is that the majority of Wikipedia editors do not feel that a local politician who fails to gain significant notice outside the borders of their home district warrants an article. They use WP:BIO as their guide, then make their own judgment accordingly. The editors make Wikipedia, not the policies. You're asking Wikipedia to stop changing. To stop evolving. To stop growing. To stop, period. DarkAudit 02:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Did you just type the words "standards change?" What happened to your mantra of ignore all rules, when that was convenient. Can you point out exactly which standards changed that entitles you to undermine an established consensus with a clear and undoubted keep at your previous failed AfD. Again, talk to all these supposed educators and you can have them change WP:BIO to match your original research. Until then, all you're doing is taking yet another bite when you were completely rejected last time around, a practice that's frowned upon. Which policy are you following / ignoring this time? Alansohn 02:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Source was Google News for 'Joe Kelly Freeholder'. Standards change. Policies change. You seek absolutes and results set in stone. You're not going to get that on Wikipedia. What is acceptable today may be unacceptable tomorrow, and vice versa. If all you're going to come up with is another stack of newspaper articles from one paper, I urge you to reconsider. I have asked a number of educators about this, leaving out specifics, of course. They say it's iffy, but even when the incidents are unrelated, using a single newspaper as the only reference is frowned upon. DarkAudit 01:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- J'accuse WP:CANVAS says: "A hard and fast rule does not exist with regard to selectively notifying certain editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view on their talk pages in order to influence a vote. However, the greater the number of editors contacted, the more often this behavior is engaged in, and the greater the resulting disruption, the more likely it is that this behavior will result in warnings and/or sanctions. Some Wikipedians have suggested that informing editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who voted in a previous AfD on a given subject) may be acceptable.
The Arbitration Committee has ruled that "[t]he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice. However, excessive cross-posting goes against current Wikipedia community norms. In a broader context, it is unwiki. "1. Wikipedia editors are therefore not to engage in aggressive cross-posting in order to influence votes, discussions, requests for adminship, requests for comment, etc." Talking to two people who have already taken part in this current round of discussion hardly meets the definition of 'excessive'. DarkAudit 04:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; fails WP:BIO for notability of politicians. For my own part, I have been recently canvassed on AfDs where I have !voted against the editor who alerted me. While nom did alert me to this AfD, and is aware I supported deletion of a similar article, I've: (1) participated in hundreds of AfDs and would likely have chimed in on this one anyway, (2) feel this AfD is readily supported on the merits of the nomination, (3) have had Alansohn likewise (and for no good reason I can discern) preemptively post to my talk page regarding DarkAudit's evil intent, and (4) am not sure what makes this a "bad faith nomination" beyond DarkAudit's plain belief that these articles about county commissioners are non-notable, but the same brush would apply to Alansohn's charges of misconduct in AfDs that just happen to be on articles he plainly passionately wants to save. RGTraynor 05:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply RGTraynor was one of the individuals directly solicited by DarkAudit, the nominator, to participate in this AfD and to vote to delete. While I appreciate the small measure of candor, RGTraynor waited five days to participate in this AfD, which would seem to belie the claim that he would have voted in this AfD regardless of the fact that he had been solicited. The post to RGTraynor's talk page was made in an effort to encourage recusing himself from this matter, a suggestion which has clearly been ignored. Despite protests to the contrary, it seems clear that this AfD has been thoroughly contaminated by a rather clear instance of Votestacking. Alansohn 05:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ... a suggestion that was never made in the first place; if Alansohn had any such intent, he could have come out and said so. In any event, given his plain desire to save these articles (at, in so far as I have noticed, extremely passionate and prolonged lengths, despite overwhelming consensus to the contrary), he should have left it to more neutral editors to make any such charges. He has not done so. To borrow a phrase from the legal profession, to receive equity, you must give equity. RGTraynor 07:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply RGTraynor was one of the individuals directly solicited by DarkAudit, the nominator, to participate in this AfD and to vote to delete. While I appreciate the small measure of candor, RGTraynor waited five days to participate in this AfD, which would seem to belie the claim that he would have voted in this AfD regardless of the fact that he had been solicited. The post to RGTraynor's talk page was made in an effort to encourage recusing himself from this matter, a suggestion which has clearly been ignored. Despite protests to the contrary, it seems clear that this AfD has been thoroughly contaminated by a rather clear instance of Votestacking. Alansohn 05:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per my reasoning here. Caknuck 07:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete by nom and Caknuck's reasoning [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sue Schilling (2nd nomination)|here]]. Not even close to meeting WP:BIO, no matter how much mud Alansohn tries to stir up to obscure this. --Calton | Talk 08:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.