Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Finnerty
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 keep, though consensus backs that clearly on the basis that the previous AfD was so recent. Mangojuicetalk 05:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus was reached on the blanket nomination here, so relisting individually. County political offices do not pass WP:BIO, and no assertion of notability beyond council membership had been made. Article has not seen any activity from it's creation in March until it was brought up for AfD, so chances of it's expansion are slim. DarkAudit 17:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - I had stepped away from my computer for lunch only to see that during my brief break, the article had reached a no consensus for an AfD, and that it was being resubmitted for deletion, all within a span of 46 minutes. While I will do my best to assume good faith, it is very hard to accept that this is not just another attempt to undo an AfD that just failed. As with the Sue Schilling AfD, can I politely suggest that as a genuine show of good faith this AfD be withdrawn and that a period of time — say several weeks or a few months — be allowed after the rejected AfD to allow the article sufficient time to be improved to allow the article to better meet the WP:BIO concerns. Alansohn 17:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No consensus was reached, and no effort has really been made to improve the article. The article as it is has been that way since March. That's plenty of time. DarkAudit 20:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - In addition to addressing the other 4,500 articles on my watchlist, and dealing with this and other AfD's, I have not had the opportunity to improve these articles. I had hoped to do so after the AfD was complete, but I was not around in the 38 minute period (check article history) before your new AfD was created. I had attempted to contact the author of the article by leaving a message on his talk page, which went unanswered, there was no email address available and the user's last edit was in March 2006. I will as respectfully as possible ask yet one more time for a simple demonstration of good faith by requesting that this AfD be withdrawn to allow sufficient time to address the concerns you have raised and bring it up to your standards. Alansohn 21:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Five months is plenty of time. The article sat untouched until the AfD. And then it was still untouched. DarkAudit 23:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - In addition to addressing the other 4,500 articles on my watchlist, and dealing with this and other AfD's, I have not had the opportunity to improve these articles. I had hoped to do so after the AfD was complete, but I was not around in the 38 minute period (check article history) before your new AfD was created. I had attempted to contact the author of the article by leaving a message on his talk page, which went unanswered, there was no email address available and the user's last edit was in March 2006. I will as respectfully as possible ask yet one more time for a simple demonstration of good faith by requesting that this AfD be withdrawn to allow sufficient time to address the concerns you have raised and bring it up to your standards. Alansohn 21:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No consensus was reached, and no effort has really been made to improve the article. The article as it is has been that way since March. That's plenty of time. DarkAudit 20:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now, as per comments at Sue Schilling. Catchpole 21:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Kelly (Freeholder), the result of which was keep. Accurizer 21:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That is not the article under discussion. I might also add no effort whatsoever was made to expand that article, in spite of the claims of notability 'on Google'. DarkAudit 23:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Indeed; if the original nomination of this article was bundled with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Kelly (Freeholder) instead of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlantic County Board of Chosen Freeholders, it is more than likely that the outcome of the previous discussion for this article would have been "keep" instead of "no consensus". In any event, good editors who are part of a WikiProject intend to expand this article and deserve a reasonable period of time to do so. This renom also does not seem consistent with the spirit of Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Nominating an article for deletion, which states: "In general, although there is no strict policy or consensus for a specific time between nominations, articles that have survived a nomination for deletion should not be immediately renominated." Accurizer 13:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The 'keep' for Joe Kelly is based on the results of a google search, none of which was brought up in either the AfD or the article in question. I therefore have reason to doubt the verdict of the AfD as entirely valid. The other two were not ruled 'keep', so I take the 'no consensus' as no decision. The articles in question still do not pass WP:BIO. The keep arguments are based on the rapid renomination, and not on the merits of the articles. DarkAudit 16:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Indeed; if the original nomination of this article was bundled with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Kelly (Freeholder) instead of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlantic County Board of Chosen Freeholders, it is more than likely that the outcome of the previous discussion for this article would have been "keep" instead of "no consensus". In any event, good editors who are part of a WikiProject intend to expand this article and deserve a reasonable period of time to do so. This renom also does not seem consistent with the spirit of Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Nominating an article for deletion, which states: "In general, although there is no strict policy or consensus for a specific time between nominations, articles that have survived a nomination for deletion should not be immediately renominated." Accurizer 13:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That is not the article under discussion. I might also add no effort whatsoever was made to expand that article, in spite of the claims of notability 'on Google'. DarkAudit 23:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, alphaChimp laudare 11:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep as per Alansohn. TestPilot 00:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Those who qualify as notable per WP:BIO are "Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature". The subject is a county official, and as I understand it is not even remotely close to that and would appear not to satisfy the criterion above, notwithstanding articles covering those holding similar positions who have survived AfD. There appear to be few other critera for his inclusion as notable. What is more, it appears that the sbject was not elected but merely appointed to fill a vacancy. Ohconfucius 05:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The additions to the page are still local positions that do not meet WP:BIO. A county officeholder does not meet the standards for political office, and there has still not been any assertions of notability beyond the local offices or 'significant press coverage' that would rise to the standards set forth in WP:BIO. The keep arguments are for the timing of the renomination. The article still fails to meet Wikipedia standards. DarkAudit 19:23, 21 August 2006 (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.