Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Byron Smith


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus (User:Redvers, please do not disrupt discussions in this way. If I discounted every line that began with "Keep" or "Delete", most AfDs would be blank) – Gurch 13:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Byron Smith
This was speedily deleted several times, but the author has protested. I don't believe it falls under clear speedy criteria, as Googling shows some minor notability. I therefore undeleted it and am placing it here with no judgement or vote &mdash; Asbestos | Talk   (RFC)  15:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you meant "no judgment or opinion", as AfD is not a vote. ➨  ЯEDVERS  20:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If we're going to be needlessly pedantic, a vote is a formal expression of preference for an option. All "deletes" and "keeps" are votes, whether or not the result of the debate is determined by a simple tally. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk   (RFC)  20:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not that here is the place to debate it, but AfD is not a vote. Using the word "vote", however you mean it to be taken, is counterproductive and weakens the AfD process. I'm also guilty of this in the past, until I discovered that the word "opinion" was both more accurate and more powerful in every context one would use it in on AfD. AfD is not a vote. ➨  ЯEDVERS  21:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - unnoteworthy, unencyclopaedic guy, as far as I can tell. Byron Smith (baseball player) and Byron Smith (judge) would both be more encyclopaedic. WilyD 15:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Maybe an old encyclopedia? When I do a search on Google for "Byron Smith" I get 71,000 links, "Byron Smith"+baseball I get 516 links, "Byron Smith"+Judge I get 621 links, "Byron Smith"+everest 1460. Is a person's occupational stature (judge or baseball player) what makes or breaks them on wikipedia? The guy was live on Canadian national news for three months! For full disclosure, I am the original author.mark 16:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - in fact, news is a far better indicator of noteworthiness than google hits - hence my preference for the other two Byron Smiths, who are way more reported on. Their occupation is irrelevent.  The guy was certainly not featured prominantly in the news - google news says zero hits for Byron Smith Everett - and he has never appeared in a Toronto Star article.  That's zero notability, my friend, and makes the guy unencyclopaedic. WilyD 17:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment WELL for news coverage...I came up with 23 articles from the Toronto Star and it's sister papers. Including:


 * "LIVE FROM MOUNT EVEREST It could be the biggest television event since the..."
 * Toronto Star; Mar 17, 2000; pg. 1


 * Local climber on all-Canadian Everest team
 * Dan Nolan; The Spectator; Apr 24, 2000; pg. A.01


 * Albertan tries again to climb Mount Everest
 * Daily Mercury; Mar 25, 2000; pg. A.7


 * Going Up
 * The Spectator; Mar 18, 2000; pg. T.08


 * Canadians set to tackle Everest for climbing and broadcasting
 * John Mckay; The Record; Mar 17, 2000; pg. A.14


 * Also of note:


 * "The Everest 2000 Expedition receives extensive media coverage – in part because of the partnership with the official expedition broadcaster, CBC Newsworld, which receives daily live satellite updates from the team during its trek up the mountain."


 * To be honest, and not to cry, it takes constant nagging to keep and article from being deleted just because he happens to be a mountaineer and not a baseball player ("Byron smith"+baseball = zero hits in google news). This all seems to be a case of "I haven't heard of it" or "I don't think it's an interesting subject".


 * I was looking forward to contributing to wikipedia, but the way this has been treated has been very disheartening. About 4 speedy deletions for unremarkable people or groups?! That's not even a criteria for speedy deletion!


 * Please keep in mind the rough guidelines for testing notable. PLEASE READ IT!


 * He has passed the tests:


 * Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events


 * Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles.mwamsley 18:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. The news articles by mwamsley show notability, as does Googling. BTW, mwamsley, are you going to vote? You're allowed to do that, even as the article's creator. Madd4 Max 20:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment AfD is not a vote. Do not vote here. "Votes" will discounted by the closing admin. ➨  ЯEDVERS  21:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. My opinion is to keep. My reasons stated above, etc.mwamsley 21:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment AfD is not a vote. Do not vote here. "Votes" will discounted by the closing admin. ➨  ЯEDVERS  21:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Neither of these comments are plain votes, and they certainly will be counted by the closing admin. Please see your talk page. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk   (RFC)  13:43, 29 June 2006 (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.