Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles William Jefferys


 * 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. Peacent 16:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Charles William Jefferys
Let me back track for some people who don't understand:The C.W. Jeffreys school shooting is no longer notable, meaning the school itself is no longer notable, and in turn this person is no longer notable.This has to be deleted by default as well as the article on the school. Rodrigue 12:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep and close Faulty logic. Once notable always notable is the Wikipedia rule. Anyone with a biography in The Canadian Encyclopedia is inherently notable. If we delete an article on a killing on MLK Boulevard, we don't delete the article on Martin Luther King, Jr. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 12:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not according to the new revision put up by Jimbo to WP:NOT, and I quote: "Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events, keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to appropriately contextualize events. The briefer the appearance of a subject in the news the less likely it is to create an acceptably comprehensive encyclopedic biography." What elements of WP:BIO do people believe the subject passes?    Ravenswing  13:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But he's dead... Keep.--Samuel J. Howard 14:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I know I am supposed to assume good faith but ... I don't think you even read the article, or comprehended my argument. He is not living and he is listed in the "The Canadian Encyclopedia", I think you are confusing the historical figure, with an event that occurred at a school named for him. Please reread my argument. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BIO. I believe that deleting this article would be a misapplication of Jimbo's statement. Jimbo's statement would support the deletion of an article about someone who was in the news for being shot -- not someone who was a "creative professional" under WP:BIO and whose article focuses only on his artistic career and does not mention the shooting at a school named after him. I also don't see how the school would lose its notability given that most high schools which come up for deletion are deemed sufficiently notable and have their articles kept. --Metropolitan90 14:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Forget the fact the school is named after him, he is notable in his own right. Wildthing61476 13:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Canadian painter. Besides: look at that picture. I'm afraid if I voted Delete he would freeze me stone with one look from those steely eyes. Even from beyond the grave. Herostratus 13:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is some policy that says his notability does not just lie solely in being the name of a now unnotable school, then the article should be deleted,regardless of opinion. Rodrigue 14:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The comment on Martin Luther King is dubious because on his own martin luther king did many things that were notable, so he does not need a boulevars named after him to be an article.This person did not do anything sighhnicant other than have a school named after him, and his article was only created after the shooting.
 * Comment on Comment I think you misunderstand the argument ... again ... and I still think you have not read the article yet. You are still confusing the shooting incident, with the painter that the school was named after. The school is not named after the shooter, or the victim, or the gun. Thats the argument for MLK that hasn't sunk in yet. Please read the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep There are 11 books which discuss his artwork here What a discussion about 'the policies on biographies of living persons' has to do with someone who died over half a century ago is beyond me. Nick mallory 14:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep From The Canadian Encyclopedia: "Jefferys is one of the most frequently reproduced of Canadian illustrators and is best known for his 'visual reconstructions' of Canadian history." The school is totally irrelevant here. Zagalejo 18:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * CommentYou say the school shooting is irrelevant, but that event is actually the only reason anyone knows his name besides the students of the school.If the article on the shooting had not been deleted, people wouldn't be trying so hard to establish his notability beyond that event.

Although I will give credit to the reference from the encyclopedia, finally someone has shows that he was atleast a somebody besides being tied to the school. Rodrigue 19:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There was a television documentary about the guy in January 2007. Someone must have heard of him before the shooting occurred. Zagalejo 20:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep How is that not notable? I mean yeah, it's short, but it's good. Whsitchy 20:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Shows the confusion produced by using the criteria for the wrong things--the strong notability for the person has nothing to do with the shooting. (And if the shooting was notable once, it remains notable, but that's another matter). I urge Rodrigue to simply withdraw his nom. 21:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)DGG


 * Keep and I suggest WP:SNOW. The article both asserts and cites notability of the individial per WP:BIO (including multiple secondary sources), I see no evidence of OR or POV in it.  Why is this on Afd?  When did we decide historical figures stop being notable? -Markeer 21:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep – Notability doesn't just disappear... recommend speedy close. &mdash; Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 22:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep and investigate nominator for vexatious, improperly listed AfDs. Nomination is FACTUALLY INCORRECT. His very first AfD on these related topics (see Articles for deletion/C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute shooting) concluded with an admin Userifying a shooting article to merge it into a new article about the school. They were not judged as worthy of being deleted. This nomination is entirely flawed and I would close it immediately if I could. Canuckle 23:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy WTF keep. Agree with above. This is ridiculous. The chain of logic in the nominations is, well, mindblowing. What next? AfD for Toronto? Flyguy649talkcontribs 02:47, 2 June 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.