Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Pickett

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. Hut 8.5 18:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kenneth Pickett

My explanation for Afd was not included: I don't know why. The reason is simply that this article fails to meet notability for both WP:BIO1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. A speedy was removed and I suspect a PROD would be, too. So I took it here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Kenneth Pickett (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

• Delete per nom. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I hate to say 'per nom' but I think he is spot on with this one. Not sure we need an article for the North Carolina Largest Bass and the thousands of similar that would be created either. Pharmboy (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep This ariticle does meet notability criteria. Article is not about something that is localized but rather something that involves one state, and also the country (USA). I fail to see how this fails under WP:NOT#NEWS considering the article is about not one, but two permenant records. Citing WP:BIO1E does not cover this situation either because this person neither was convicted of an "unimportant crime or standing election, ect". This invoves not one, but two valid standing records and I feel that this is information that will server the greater population. Censuring it out would only do a disservice to the end user. Ktwelk (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)ktwelk

WP:NOT#NEWS is really the core of my argument, so please allow me quote it in some detail:

Not Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events... Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news. Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article.

See, it's not a question of how many press stories or "permanent records" there are about this man. There is no historical notability about someone shooting the biggest turkey in Wisconsin no matter how many local or even national papers cite it. That's my position, anyway. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, NN state hunting "record" (which has as much to do with luck as anything else). --Dhartung | Talk 22:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - the subject is not notable, and WP:NOT#NEWS seems like a clear fit. -FrankTobia (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2007 (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.