Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A.W.A. "Artie" Phair

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

A.W.A. "Artie" Phair
It seems someone has been writing a history of their small town, and Artie here was a coroner and merchant, and friend of some other guy. Also a "noted" chronicler and photographer, though "noted" is highly subjective. Google isn't great for guys like this, and both "Artie Phair" and "A W A Phair" got me very few hits, several wikipedia. Those that weren't were generally photo credits, which any professional photographer will have. I don't see anything about this guy that seems at all encyclopedic. Minor fellow in a minor town. -R. fiend 20:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per R. fiend. Dcarrano 20:46, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep What's wrong with having entries like this? We can't judge everything by the almighty Google, which seems like all Wikipedians ever do. Who's to say that the history of this small town is less interesting or "encyclopedic" than the history of a town that has info up on the net and will get you Google results? royblumy 00:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The guy didn't do anything in the town. No one is objecting to the Lillooet article.  Dcarrano 00:09, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * My point was that he was a professional photographer (as verified by the google links), so why is that considered "not doing anything" just because the photos were of a relatively unknown small town? In other words, though he might not be a notable photographer, he seems to be a notable part of that town's history. Maybe include him in the Lillooet article instead? royblumy 01:13, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * I just don't see how we know he's a "notable part of that town's history." Because this article says he was "noted", with no proof of that within the article or anywhere, and which is a weasel word to begin with?  Because he had intellectual-type interests like "historian" and "photographer," instead of being a butcher, baker or candlestick maker?  To include, in an article about a city, mention of an everyday working person who lived in that city would be very weird.  Giving that guy his own article would be even more weird.  Those are what we appear to be dealing with here, IMO.  Dcarrano 02:57, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * You might want to go and explicitly change your vote if that's what you want. -Splash 02:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to Lillooet, British Columbia as royblumy suggests. -Splash 02:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per R.Fiend. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 09:48, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Radiant. JamesBurns 09:57, 13 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.