Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Clay Ide

: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 Snow keep. I'm rarely a fan of snow closures, but this is one of those times when following process too closely would not be in the encyclopaedia's best interests. The matter has spilled over into AN/I, it's creating totally unnecessary drama and it's time to put a lid on it.

The fact that I have snow closed this debate should not be taken as a reflection on anyone's conduct, and specifically with reference to the AN/I discussion, the snow closure should not be taken as an indication that Drawn Some is in any way unwelcome to bring cases to AfD. I believe this nomination was an error, but I also believe it was made in good faith. NAC—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)'''

=[[Henry Clay Ide]]=

:{{la|Henry Clay Ide}} – (View AfD)(View log)

:({{findsources|Henry Clay Ide}})

Specifically fails WP:DIPLOMAT/ Drawn Some (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep. Being an ambassador doesn't justify having an article, but being a governor-general does. Fram (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep This is not a good faith nomination. see the discussion at AN/I. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=313256226] DGG ( talk ) 21:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Debatable. The previous ANI discussions are used as evidence, but when you read those discussions, it is clear that his nominations then were mostly correct, and that focusing on the articles of one editor is not a problem as long as the problems you indicate are indeed largely correct (i.e. if you nominate a lot of articles by one editor for deletion, and many of those are indeed deleted, then you have acted correctly, and the problem lies with the one creating all these articles on non notable subjects). In his current batch, I have the impression that Drawn Som's judgement was a lot poorer than the previous times, with some notable subjects nominated together with some deletable ones, but to use this as a reason to speedy keep them is IMO incorrect. His track record of good nominations earns him the right of full AfDs this time around as well. If it turns out that this time, he has seriously misjudged things, then he should learn a lesson. If a next batch would be again filled with too many incorrect nominations, then some action may be needed. For now, all I see is some editors who have time and time again argued that his nominations were bad because they were focused on one editor, but ignoring that many of the articles were indeed clearly deletable. Shooting at the messenger, I believe that is called. An editor who has many incorrect AfD nominations is a problem. An editor who has many article creations on non notabke subjects is a problem as well. Taking on only one of the two is biased judgment, and is not surprising, sadly, when one notices the common traits of many of those editors. Fram (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep If he can have an entry in [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IWdZTaJdc6UC&pg=PA259&dq=Henry+Clay+Ide+Governor+general&as_brr=3&client=firefox-a#v=onepage&q=Henry%20Clay%20Ide%20Governor%20general&f=false The United States in Asia: a historical dictionary] and a biography [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7K6ZAAAAIAAJ&q=Henry+Clay+Ide&dq=Henry+Clay+Ide&client=firefox-a The life of Henry Clay Ide by Arthur Fairbanks Stone (1935)], he can have an article in Wikipedia per WP:N. Noting also DGG's concerns. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Sure, he fails as WP:DIPLOMAT, but he was the head of state of a country, which is definitely notable. Grandmartin11 (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Easily passes WP:BIO per Google news/books/scholar. Location (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that little more needs to be said than that the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Clay_Ide&diff=313263592&oldid=313248780 first four sources cited in the article] are all encyclopaedia articles for this person. And I didn't even cite the 1973 Britannica. This person is encyclopaedic by simple dint of already having articles in encyclopaedias. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep: Per everyone else. Notable person, lots of hits on G-tests. Especially Uncle G's points. Metty (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep I would think having an entry in Encyclopedia American, would be a hint that the subject is notable. This is just another bad faith nomination, and since no sanctions were put in place against Drawn Some the last time he nominated a dozen of my articles, they will continue. Appeasing disruption just makes the disruptor more destructive the next time you encounter them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. The only reason I'm not closing it already as a speedy keep is that I wanted to mention another source: a Google book search immediately found a whole published book about this guy, The life of Henry Clay Ide by Arthur Fairbanks Stone, Vail-Ballou Press, 1935. It seems clear that the nominator has failed to apply WP:BEFORE and should be admonished from continuing to make such frivolous nominations, good faith or no. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:15, 12 September 2009 (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.