Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Sessions

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 Snowball keep, really obvious consensus to keep here. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 19:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Sessions

Michael_Sessions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)
  • Keep Not liking the cited, verifiable and accurate contents of a Wiki entry is not grounds for deletion. Further, this is a well known local politician. Doing a search on Google News ;Micheal Sessions" turns up 86 entries for this person, many of them related to past criminal charges and a recall. A search of "Michael Sessions" on Google turns up 16,600 hits, most of them the party in question. By any stretch of the imagination, this person is in the public eye, is newsworthy, and deserves the entry. They have been on the David Letterman show, the Today show, CNN and countless other television shows. BTW, two other teenage mayors, of smaller towns, also have wiki entries, and they have far far less publicity then this person. Please reference MayorMarion Barry's Wiki entry as well, as he has had his share of problems, yet still has a wiki Kirksmonkey 03:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is no negative bias in this article, only (AFAIK) factual reporting. It's not that easy to figure out what the real story is, because Faecak keeps deleting sections, but there're no grounds for deletion. --Nucleusboy 13:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm against deleting this article. Everything is accurate and as best I can determine, fair. There has been a continuing problem of vandelism on this page (3 deletion rule) since information was posted about the trouble this party got into. I see this AfD as a transparent continuation of this. 69.95.183.200 03:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Nominator failed to provide a rationale for deletion. Typically such nominations are speedy closed. I am concerned about the tone of the article and the amount (and scale) of negative material per WP:NPOV#Undue weight, and I have placed a {{BLPC}} check tag for an administrator to look at the article's compliance with biographies of living persons policy. Please do not remove this notice. --Dhartung | Talk 10:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep: No rationale for deletion given, and subject blows right past WP:V with flying colors; I can't imagine any AfD the article could not pass on the merits.  RGTraynor  13:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - why is this debate still open? Jauerback 15:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment So with user opinion against an AfD, now a BLPC? Dhartung, if you would spend a few minutes looking at the citations, you'd understand the scale of the comments, and the 'negative tone' you speak of are direct quotes from newspaper articles. Frankly, I can't see someone being charged and plea bargaining to a crime as not having a negative tone! It is what it is, and not every entry in a Wiki can be about Butterflies and Bunny Rabbits. Sometimes people in elected public office do dumb and stupid things, get caught and it becomes newsworthy and part of person. As I mentioned to you before, with an active AfD, I think a BLPC is premature, and frankly from what I have read, a subset of a AfD (with some exceptions, yet this person being an elected public figure, with over 16,000 google hits, they do not apply). 64.179.49.62
    • They are completely separate with different purposes. An AFD decides whether an article should exist, primarily under notability guidelines. All articles that exist on Wikipedia, however, must conform to WP:NPOV and especially WP:BLP. The notice you're concerned about does nothing but reiterate a core policy of this encyclopedia. A BLP check simply ensures that individual statements, added together do not violate policy. In effect every editor should perform a BLP check on every article they encounter at all times. If you are not prepared to work under our policies, I suggest you reconsider your involvement in this project. --Dhartung | Talk 19:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm certain I am not as well versed as you in the ways of the Wiki, but based on your comment on the articles discussion page "I make no judgement because I know too little about the subject" was why I asked you to look at the citations and newspaper stories, instead of judging them because they looked negative (which frankly, they are, yet they are fact). If anything, instead of alerting the admin, perhaps you could add to the article to balance it out relative to the criminal charges and plea deal. Asking for an article or portions of article to be deleted simply because you do not like them is not grounds for either a AfD or BLP. In any case, you've got your BLP, hopefully the admin will see the same thing most everyone here does. 64.179.49.62
  • Keep, notabable and verifiable. why is it up for AfD? Callelinea 18:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obvious snowball situation here. All I can add is to take heed to the warning tag on the article and make sure it conforms to NPOV, etc etc. 23skidoo 18:56, 2 August 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.