Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Ellison (polygamist)


 * 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. It may be appropriate to propose a merge with the group article, or a siege article if it's created. --BDD (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

James Ellison (polygamist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I reidrected this article to the related The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord, as there is no independent notability. I was reverted almost immediately byb who stated "you don't get to make that decision unilaterally", obviously unaware of WP:BOLD. Regardless, I stand by my belief that there this person has no independent notability, and I therefore suggest the article is redirected, or deleted. GiantSnowman 15:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve. Subject is clearly notable, with many news sources and books of the time covering him. He founded a notable organization, was involved in a notable raid, had notable charges levelled against him, the court case was notable, etc. Yworo (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * How is he (i.e. the actual person) notable? Your claim is not verified in any reliable sources, and notability is not inherited - just because he was a founder of a notable organisation does not make him independently notable, hence my redirect. GiantSnowman 15:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So you haven't bothered to look for sources, because if you had, you'd have found them. Yworo (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:BEFORE and WP:BURDEN. GiantSnowman 16:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:BEFORE: "D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability". It's the nominators responsibilty. You clearly stated your main concern was notability. As for WP:BURDEN, I take it seriously and have added nine sources to the article already. Yworo (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Since almost the entire article is about the siege, as are almost all of the sources, doesn't WP:BLP1E come into play? An article on the siege would be more appropriate, but I'm not sure if it's a notable event. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Precisely; not independently notable. Crating an article on the siege, or simply improving the existing article on the organisation involved makes sense; an article on this person does not. GiantSnowman 10:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:01, 19 September 2013 (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.