Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Owens (politician)


 * 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 redirect to Major R. Owens. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 11:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Chris Owens (politician)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

NN autobio, all non-dead links self-pub, notability is not inherited, and source-tagged for over 6 years, redirect to his father's article Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please give an explanation for this nomination. Thank you. NasssaNser (talk/edits) 13:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Er, he already did. I certainly try to provide more detail (some would say longwindedness) in my nomination statements, but Kintetsubuffalo's nomination statement is in no way unclear about why this would legitimately be in question. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In fairness, for some reason/glitch, my edit didn't take properly, third time it's done that to me in an AfD. pointed out on my talkpage that it showed up in the edit summary but not on the original AfD. Maybe I am not holding my mouth right?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed I noticed it in the AfD log; usually for most of these cases I would drop a procedural keep rationale but since I know Kintetsubuffalo has a long history on AfD I decided a talk page notice to fill in the reason would suffice and in the space between my talk notice and Bearcat's response there was still odd code rather than the rationale for deletion. Pretty rare when the AfD script malfunctions, but it happened here and the nomination was too justified to PK and speedy close and it definitely wasn't one of the regular 'drive by' noms by any means.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 07:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 16:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is a poorly sourced WP:BLP of a person who has no claim of notability strong enough to exempt him from having to be sourced a lot better than this. Being a local political activist is not an automatic inclusion freebie; being a non-winning candidate in a party primary or a general election is not an automatic inclusion freebie; being a local district leader for his political party is not an automatic inclusion freebie. And none of the referencing here is sufficient to get him over the WP:GNG bar either, as it's based almost entirely on primary sources rather than reliable source coverage in media — and even the few links which are reliable source coverage in media are not about him, but merely namecheck his existence in the process of being about something else. None of this is good enough to get him over the bar that distinguishes "person who exists" from "person whose existence warrants the attention of an encyclopedia". Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bearcat; poorly formatted BLP that reads as a WP:RESUME, and most of the elections were hardly public but just internal party processes. At best, a redirect to his father's article would be the best course and would be supported.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 07:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect - arguably, he's notable as a Democratic state committeeman in a district that is over 95 % Democratic, although much of the attention paid to him is because of his father. FWIW, I'm two degrees of separation from the subject - he and one of my older brothers were class mates; I also started at The Bronx High School of Science two years after he graduated, and according to Facebook, we have 16 friends in common. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2017 (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.