Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Broughton (second nomination)

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. Cbrown1023 02:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Broughton

Second nomination, malformed Afd, reason given by nominator when also prodding the article was "Violation of policy for biographies of living persons, previously deleted, not notable". I'm just trying to help so I can delete that old deletion discussion from back in March on this page, so I abstain Dina 00:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On reread, what I said was a bit confusing so to clarify: The orginal nominator prod-tagged the article and then transcluded a nomination onto the Afd page (I think s/he thought this would result in an Afd discussion). It should have resulted in a redlink, but since this article has been nominated before, instead it resulted in a repost of the first Afd discussion for this article, closed as a delete (?) back in March. I didn't want to delete the old nom without properly completing what I believe was the editor's original intention. Cheers. Dina 02:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing this. The article was originally deleted in March 2005, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Broughton. 14:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC) John Broughton (not a relative as far as I know)

If it was Afded and delete was the result why are we doing it again? Nothing new here. An Afd should also be completed on the other non notable organizations created by this activist through sockpuppets. Dominick ^(TALK) 16:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Leave this article please. Anyone who's run a major and historical organization such as Airspace, and run for office twice as a candidate for a major political party, has grounds for remaining on Wikipedia. Yes the article is not that well written, and some of it is pretty minor stuff in the greater scheme of things, but it's of interest to many. It could use more supportive links but not all history is out there on the Internet to link to. The Airspace and UBC issue is well known in the Vancouver media, getting at it unfortunatly means paid accounts. --RoxMorgan 06:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete also-ran candidates are not notable. Airspace and UBC are both relatively nn local groups, ergo connection with them would not garner notariety. SkierRMH,08:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Mr. Broughton is quite well-known in regards to tobacco issues in BC, and Canada. In addition, BC is about to gain international prominence in this field, as its groundbreaking lawsuit against tobacco companies has passed all legal obstacles save a possible Supreme Court challenge, and will soon go to trial. See, http://www.tobacco.org/news/232105.html 21:10, 13 December 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.225.96 (talk • contribs)

Keep: With some of the other stuff I've seen on Wikipedia, I think one of the issues here is if Wikipedia will be a relevant and useful resource at the provincial and state level. Obviously, the action being taken by governments against tobacco companies, and the players in that issue are of value, as it is of value to note the thinkers and notables on urban transporation and other issues. It seems to me that this kind of approach is one of the key benefits of a web-based encyclopedia. Jaimie McEvoy, writer and historian. 205.250.151.188 00:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: (I am the original nominator) The non-notability of his political activities was established the last time this page was deleted. The non-notability of his activism is established by the fact that there is no independent information on him anywhere that I can find, only articles written by him and published (mainly) on his own page. The primary criterion for notability is whether the subject of an article has been the subject of non-trivial published works by multiple separate sources that are independent of that subject (user:uncle G/on notability). Under this test, Broughton clearly fails. Notability is not having a lot of friends, or being a part of an important cause. I appreciate that the above commentors value the subject's contribution to their lives and their cause, but this is not the criterion that determines whether or not this page should stay or go. I note en passant that it is also a clear violation of the policies on autobiography and on deleted pages. Alexwoods 03:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Bob was the president of Airspace during the period when the conflict between tobacco and the health lobby was the hottest (smoke-free areas, tobacco sponsorships, cigarette sales to children, etc.). He did an excellent job of keeping the heat on, constantly in the media presenting the pro-health/anti-tobacco viewpoint. 24.83.93.246 04:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Not Notable, only 36 ghits for this specific person, and many are wikipedia mirrors. Not notable by any wikipedia standard. Please note that sending people to wikipedia to vote will not save an article. Generally, editors with less than 100 or so edits are evidence of astroturfing a vote. Dominick ^(TALK) 15:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - CSD G4, reposted content that was deleted as a result of an articles for deletion discussion.--blue520 07:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The last AFD only talked about being a candidate; so I'll go out on a limb and assume the current material is different. But it doesn't assert notability to WP:BIO standards. GRBerry 02:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Alexwoods has failed to substantiate his "autobiography" accusation: see wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts for Dec. 12. He has presented no evidence whatsoever to support his libelous NDP pedophile accusation. Prescottbush 16:47, 16 December 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.