- 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 speedy keep - Procedural close - I'm getting the feeling the nominator is trolling but either way "Not notable" isn't in itself a valid reason for deletion. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 14:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
- Ezra A. Bowen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable Bobbertybob ( talk) 06:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:POLITICIAN - sub-national office. -- haminoon ( talk) 06:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy keep Meets WP:POLITICIAN. Pretty simple. -- NeilN talk to me 06:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy keep As I mentioned on Bobbertybob's page, it falls under WP:NPOL. Interference 541 ( talk) 06:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Members of state and provincial legislatures can be presumed to be notable as they receive coverage in reliable sources during their service , and with sufficient research in local libraries, an informative article can pretty much always be written. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep POINTy nomination by disruptive editor. Subject is notable per WP:POLITICIAN as previously noted here. Jbh ( talk) 07:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- That's quite an accusation. Please could you take up this discussion with me, on my talk page. Thanks. Bobbertybob ( talk) 07:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- DELETE
- WP:POLITICIAN is a guideline, not a policy. I think that is a very important distinction.
- I am not doubting that this person existed (but so did 100 billion others [1]), but I am wondering if there is enough (ref'd) information to actually maintain an article about them.
- What can we say about the person, beyond that they existed? There is - as far as I can ascertain - no reliable sources out there to provide anything beyond that.
- "Ezra A. Bowen was a Democratic member of the Wisconsin State Senate from 1854 to 1855.[1][2] He was a native of Mayville, Wisconsin"
- We could write the same 'details' about anyone who was ever born, from telephone directories. But WP:NDIR, right?
- Thus, I refer back to the core principles of WP:N.
- Way back in 2006, the (co)founder of Wikpedia wrote, "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information" [2]
- For this reason - and based on policy rather than guidelines - I do not think that, at this time, there is enough information in reliable sources to support an article about this individual.
- IFF Wikipedia could have an article about every person on this planet, that'd be great. But only if we can provide an appropriate enclcopaedic article about that person - using appropriate referenced details.
- For this person, we cannot.
- I trust that any admin closing this discussion will consider policy.
Bobbertybob (
talk)
07:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- I trust any admin will spot the numerous red herrings in your argument. --
NeilN
talk to me
07:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Instead of just saying that, can you tell me what they are, here? This is a discussion. Thanks.
Bobbertybob (
talk)
07:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Reply There is no "misleading or false" information about this person in the article. It Is, according to the sources, an accurate if brief stub article. There is nothing wrong with stub articles. He differs from billions of others because he was elected to a state legislature, which is of interest to an encyclopedia, and sets him off from all those others. Spend a few hours in the right Madison, Wisconsin libraries, expand the article, and we will then know much more about him. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Instead of just saying that, can you tell me what they are, here? This is a discussion. Thanks.
Bobbertybob (
talk)
07:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- I trust any admin will spot the numerous red herrings in your argument. --
NeilN
talk to me
07:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Obviously notable per WP:NPOL. Obviously a real individual/politician based on the Wisconsin State Legislature's own records. That the article is (very) thin is not an issue. Rwessel ( talk) 07:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 07:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 07:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Can you provide evidence of
WP:GNG through
WP:VRS?
Bobbertybob (
talk)
07:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- We have special notability guidelines which are just as valid as the general notability guideline. As for the VRS thing, it is an essay, and a useful one, but it does not apply in all situations. Including this one. Read the handwriting on the wall. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- The specific policy WP:NPOL establishes notability (summary: all state and higher politicians are notable), and the Wisconsin State Legislature, while not a reliable source in all things, would certainly be considered so as to its membership. Rwessel ( talk) 07:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Can you provide evidence of
WP:GNG through
WP:VRS?
Bobbertybob (
talk)
07:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy keep as it clearly meets the specific notability policy WP:NPOL. -- bonadea contributions talk 10:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep State legislators arenotable-Thank you- RFD ( talk) 13:03, 25 April 2015 (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.