- 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-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Carlos Avery ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. Completely unsourced article about a state bureaucrat, whose strongest claim of notability is that he had a wildlife management area named after him. This is not an automatic inclusion freebie that entitles him to a standalone biography just because he existed, if enough reliable source coverage to get him over WP:GNG isn't present to support it. We already have a separate article about the park, so he can certainly be mentioned there as its namesake -- but reliable sourcing, not the mere fact of his existence, is what it would take to get him a standalone article as a separate topic. Bearcat ( talk) 19:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Carlos Avery Game Farm. Was there any reason to bring this to AfD rather than perform the obvious editing action that doesn't require an admin to press the "delete" button? 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 20:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Lack of any substantive reason to retain the edit history behind the redirect. A new redirect can still be created from the redlink afterward if desired; deleting the article would not preclude that. As well, if somebody actually types "Carlos Avery" into the search bar, "Carlos Avery Game Farm" is already going to come up as the very first autocomplete option anyway, so a redirect wouldn't actually help direct anybody anywhere they wouldn't already have gotten directed anyway. There'd be a much stronger case for a redirect if the redirect target didn't already have his name right in its title — but if the park's name is already going to show up in the search anyway, then a redirect from his own name is just redundant.
Bearcat (
talk) 20:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason why the history shouldn't be kept, so starting a deletion discussion rather than just redirecting is a waste of all of our time.
86.17.222.157 (
talk) 20:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- The history should not be kept because it's unsourced content about a person who doesn't pass a notability criterion. And redirects with prior edit histories as articles often get reverted back to articles again by new editors who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies, leading to edit warring when it gets re-reverted back to a redirect and then re-re-reverted back to an article and then re-re-re-reverted back to a redirect again — so there needs to be a much more compelling reason than "it's not hurting anything" to actually retain the edit history rather than deleting the article and then creating a redirect.
Bearcat (
talk) 20:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Your argument about being "unsourced content" has not added WP:IAR, and WP:DEL7 does not provide for deletion based on an absence of sources in the article. Unscintillating ( talk) 02:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- The history should not be kept because it's unsourced content about a person who doesn't pass a notability criterion. And redirects with prior edit histories as articles often get reverted back to articles again by new editors who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies, leading to edit warring when it gets re-reverted back to a redirect and then re-re-reverted back to an article and then re-re-re-reverted back to a redirect again — so there needs to be a much more compelling reason than "it's not hurting anything" to actually retain the edit history rather than deleting the article and then creating a redirect.
Bearcat (
talk) 20:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason why the history shouldn't be kept, so starting a deletion discussion rather than just redirecting is a waste of all of our time.
86.17.222.157 (
talk) 20:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Lack of any substantive reason to retain the edit history behind the redirect. A new redirect can still be created from the redlink afterward if desired; deleting the article would not preclude that. As well, if somebody actually types "Carlos Avery" into the search bar, "Carlos Avery Game Farm" is already going to come up as the very first autocomplete option anyway, so a redirect wouldn't actually help direct anybody anywhere they wouldn't already have gotten directed anyway. There'd be a much stronger case for a redirect if the redirect target didn't already have his name right in its title — but if the park's name is already going to show up in the search anyway, then a redirect from his own name is just redundant.
Bearcat (
talk) 20:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 20:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 20:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Held a senior position in a state government. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Not a notability freebie in the absence of
reliable source coverage about that.
Bearcat (
talk) 16:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Senior civil servants, especially heads of departments, are usually considered to be notable by virtue of their position in my experience. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Not a notability freebie in the absence of
reliable source coverage about that.
Bearcat (
talk) 16:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 14:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Redirect- This amount of information can be safely incorporated in the piece on the eponymous wildlife refuge. I suppose a really serious biographical effort could be made that would pass GNG muster, theoretically speaking, but this ain't it. Carrite ( talk) 18:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hmmmmmm, the plot thickens. I see from a cursory glance at Newspapers.com that Avery was also a newspaper publisher and Democratic candidate for governor of Minnesota in 1924. This actually is a bio that can be taken over the GNG bar, defeated politician or not. I might play around with it for an hour to see how that goes... Carrite ( talk) 18:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - Pending further work on the piece by me. Major party nominees for governor are pretty much inevitably GNG passes, I think. Carrite ( talk) 18:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- There is copious newspaper coverage of this former mayor of Hutchinson, MN and state Democratic Party bigwig. Note also the existence of a booklet on him LISTED HERE, apparently a publication of the Carlos Avery Wildlife Refuge. Biography is expanding... Carrite ( talk) 19:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly notable, and the article now has adequate sourcing, due to Carrite's more than ten-fold expansion. Kablammo ( talk) 16:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- My "redirect" opinion above should be read as "do not delete", so needn't stand in the way of a speedy keep if Bearcat withdraws. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 16:57, 5 October 2016 (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.