Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanford Brown
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 No Consensus. Eluchil404 04:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sanford Brown
A person of local notability for a couple of reasons, as would most school board members or priests or chamber of commerce types, but no demonstration that his notability extends beyond his locality Carlossuarez46 19:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Extends beyond his locality (Seattle) isn't necessary. "Most school board members or priests or chamber" types don't take cases to the state supreme court, author columns on serious topics in major daily newspapers and are criticized by media for their stand on social issues. All 3 together seem to add up to recurring local (major city) press covergage and notabiilty for me. PS never heard of the guy before. Canuckle 20:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Wikipedia has no concept of local notability, It is either notable or not. This one seems to be. Fosnez 20:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, plenty of unsolicited, reliable sources to back up the notability. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, is Wikipedia going to become myspace where every self involved person posts his own resume when they are only "notable" in their own mind? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.121.23 (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - subject of this article is clearly not notable. Dlabtot 18:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Can you expand on that assertion? Clearly you see something different than what I am seeing. Perhaps some more information will help me see things your way. Canuckle 18:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- This person created their own article promoting themselves. If you asked 100 people in the Seattle region if they have ever heard of him you would be hard pressed to find 1 that had. You have to draw the line somewhere or Wikipedia will become Myspace and a good place to draw that line is at people that actually have been heard of. A good example is he refers to being criticized by a very notable local news commentator. This is a person that 99 out of 100 people in the seattle area have heard of and he does not have a wikipedia article. This is self promotion, nothing more, nothing less. --67.160.121.23 19:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Granted the creator seems to have only edited this one article, but if there are conflict of interest concerns, slap a WP:COI warning on it. The Seattle Times profiled him both when he took a civic leadership position years and when he departed. I guess we could value your anonymous reassurance that nobody is aware of him over reliable sources like the Times... Canuckle 20:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- This person created their own article promoting themselves. If you asked 100 people in the Seattle region if they have ever heard of him you would be hard pressed to find 1 that had. You have to draw the line somewhere or Wikipedia will become Myspace and a good place to draw that line is at people that actually have been heard of. A good example is he refers to being criticized by a very notable local news commentator. This is a person that 99 out of 100 people in the seattle area have heard of and he does not have a wikipedia article. This is self promotion, nothing more, nothing less. --67.160.121.23 19:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - This is clearly a resume type promotion for a minister who will be changing jobs and stepping down from a church organization. While I've heard of the Church Council of Seattle, the Rev. Sanford, doesn't represent much to 1 in 1000 Seattle residents nor does his name ring synonomous with Church Council of Seattle. Do we want wiki pages for every employee of every organization listed in wiki? Do we want to have church directories on Wiki? I agree with the deletion for this topic and suggest the author to create the myspace or blogspot personal account to create notoriety in the neighborhood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.16 (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Maybe it wasn't you, but the history of vandalism warning on User talk:130.76.32.16 does give me pause in accepting the above at face value. Canuckle 21:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Why? It is clear looking at the details that this is a shared IP address from a large company. Edits made by it are so diverse in nature that it is clear that there are many posting from it. It is the message, not the delivery method, that matters. --67.160.121.23 21:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- I said it gave "pause" and noted that it may not have been the contributer behind the vandalism. But aside from the issue of anonymous messengers posting similar arguments, let's look at the messages that are to be avoided in deletion discussion WP:ONLYCREATEDFOR promotional purposes. WP:IDONTKNOWIT or WP:UNKNOWNHERE - The 100 Seattlites and the 1000 Seattlites mentioned above don't seem to be readers or writers of the Seattle Times which made the person a subject of more than one article (Religion section articles count) and his positions were considered newsworthy too. WP:Notability (people) says "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". If you want to argue that the coverage hasn't been sufficiently significant, than provide something to back up the assertion for us to rely upon -- so that we can say something other than "well anonymous people said he was a nobody so he must be a nobody." Canuckle 22:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- And there should really be a WP:SLIPPERYSLOPETHATSENDSWIKIPEDIATOHELLINAHANDBASKET listed in the points to avoid too....Canuckle 23:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Why? It is clear looking at the details that this is a shared IP address from a large company. Edits made by it are so diverse in nature that it is clear that there are many posting from it. It is the message, not the delivery method, that matters. --67.160.121.23 21:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - I am going to go with delete as well. I did a Google search for "Sanford Brown" and drilled down more than 10 pages without finding a single reference to this person. The idea that a newspaper doing a profile, or someone contributing to an editorial page, in itself does not make that a notable person. If we are looking for the lowest possible standard then this one fits the bill but it smacks of someone using wikipedia to give their self promotion more credibility. --Coz 04:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Not a "single reference"? Not one at all? Perhaps you should try Google rather than Gawgle. Here's a few (some passing) from the NY Times, Seattle PI, Seattle Times, King, etc: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5],[6], [7], [8], [9]...By the way, when you apologized for editing while logging out on Tent City, one of Brown's hot topics, was it because your edits were editing as 67.160.121.23 as per this diff and so have double-voted in this AfD? Canuckle 22:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- That is the problem when you assume. Our office has a lot of wikipedia users, some that participate in the same topics (and many that don't). In that case I had edited without logging in by accident. In this case one of our employees chose to edit without logging in on purpose. But thanks for trying, it always amazes me when people cant focus on the real issue at hand. --Coz 19:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- I asked, I didn't assume. Please do comment on the issue at hand... Canuckle 20:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- That is the problem when you assume. Our office has a lot of wikipedia users, some that participate in the same topics (and many that don't). In that case I had edited without logging in by accident. In this case one of our employees chose to edit without logging in on purpose. But thanks for trying, it always amazes me when people cant focus on the real issue at hand. --Coz 19:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, as the subject meets WP:BIO given the repeated reliable coverage. In terms of Wikipedia, there is no such thing as "local" notability. Yamaguchi先生 00:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Definitely meets WP:BIO, enough reliable secondary sources, even the nominator himself accepts the notability; he wrote local notability but since there is no such thing as "local" notability, this automatically defaults to notability. --Kudret abi 10:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - I would vote to delete Sanford Brown and promote a Church Council page. Most links refer to Sanford as an employee of Church Council. When he steps down the headings will be for a new employee of Church Council; therefore, it appears that the Sanford page is an attempt to self promote prior to leaving his post on the Church Council. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.92.7 (talk) 19:13, 16 September 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.
