- 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. ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 00:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- Anton Gunn ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page has verifiability issues because it uses bare URLs. Many of these links have already been affected by link rot and no longer work. There is a lack of reliable sources that cover this person, and most of the current listed sources are from not very notable news outlets. In addition, this article is a biography of a living person and many of the information given comes from sources of questionable reliability. Also, this page might not reach Wikipedia's notability guidelines because the subject does not receive significant coverage and many sources aren't reliable. Wikipuser777 ( talk) 14:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Some of the links may not work (I didn't check them all) but the hhs.gov one does. As a Member of the South Carolina House of Representatives I imagine he is notable enough.
Gbawden (
talk) 19:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - The article is predominantly written by one editor. This editor also linked his user page to redirect to the article. This leads me to believe that this is an autobiography, which is discouraged by Wikipedia, and this topic does not receive significant coverage nor does it have many reliable sources. Wikipuser777 ( talk) 22:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete article does not meet
WP:BASIC
Pikachu123pi (
talk) 22:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - @
Gbawden, as Pikachu123pi noted below, Gunn does not meet
WP:BASIC. Even though he was a member, he doesn't have significant coverage. We don't have a Wikipedia article on every single member of the house of representatives.
Wikipuser777 (
talk) 23:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST comes under arguments to avoid. The subject passes WP:POLITICIAN. Tone and style are obvious problems with the article, but that is a matter of clean up. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - @
Gbawden, as Pikachu123pi noted below, Gunn does not meet
WP:BASIC. Even though he was a member, he doesn't have significant coverage. We don't have a Wikipedia article on every single member of the house of representatives.
Wikipuser777 (
talk) 23:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:POLITICIAN and my comments above. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. This is not the best article that Wikipedia has ever seen. But the subject is clearly notable. Not only does he meet the very clear criteria in WP:POLITICIAN but there is, as you would expect for a person of his experience, significant coverage in reliable sources ( [1] and [2] being among a number of examples). -- Mkativerata ( talk) 02:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- WP:NPOL confers an automatic presumption of notability on all duly serving members of a state legislature — if we don't have articles about some of the others, then that's only because some of them haven't been written yet, and not because they fail to qualify. Coverage will in fact be there if somebody actually puts in the effort, because state politics is a subject that the media do cover in depth — and the other problem is that any inclusion standard which permitted some members of the state legislature to be considered notable, and others not, would open us up to partisan editwarring of the "delete all (Democrats/Republicans/Tea Partiers/Blue Dogs/etc.) because I fundamentally disagree with their ideology" variety. Clearly there are problems here that require some cleanup work, so it should be flagged for cleanup, but it's not a deletion candidate. Keep. Bearcat ( talk) 23:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly meets WP:NPOL and WP:BASIC-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 02:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:POLITICIAN . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 13:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Members of state legislatures are notable. AfD is not for clean-up, other issues with the article should be handled in other ways. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:46, 16 August 2014 (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.