Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nels J. 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 was snow keep. The challenge was made that this person is not notable. Gene93k has linked sources that conclusively prove otherwise, and there is no need for anyone else to pile on.— S Marshall T/C 21:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Nels J. Smith

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

'''A very short Unnoticeable BLP, and poorly sourced with no value to be included in an encyclopedia. having no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, a recently created article with no significant history page written by article subject.''' DaeafcMnnC (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - as it fails WP:Notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaeafcMnnC (talk • contribs) 09:06, 28 November 2015‎ (UTC)
 * Comment: please note that the "supposed" WP:POLITICIANS was active from 1963 to 1979 only, and his 76-year-old retired BLP was wrote this year 2015‎ !!?--DaeafcMnnC (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And this is relevant how? Notability is not temporary. It does not expire when a politician retires from politics. The systemic bias against topics from before 1994 is not grounds for exclusion. Neither does the fact that it took 14 years for someone to get around to writing about the subject in Wikipedia. The article is a stub, but sufficient reliable source coverage to improve the article appears to exist. • Gene93k (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't appear to understand what i have said, the relevance is that there is no WP:Notability at all! i didn't said: Notability is temporary i said there is no WP:Notability.
 * it took 14 years for someone to get around to write about? well the thing is that the subject was written by the article subject! which meet WP:COI?--DaeafcMnnC (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You keep saying that the article was written by the subject. The article's edit history says it was created by a Wikipedia admin with 85989 edits since 2006-07-26. The claim of COI lacks evidence. • Gene93k (talk) 11:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - satisfies (1) of WP:POLITICIANS. Due to the era, online sources may be few, but having served 16 years as a state legislator, he's bound to be notable. The article has possibilities, it's just a matter of scrounging up some (most likely offline) sources.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 08:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep He clearly meets our notability guideline WP:POLITICIAN. Since he was Speaker of the Wyoming House of Representatives, a search of Wyoming newspapers will inevitably yield plenty of coverage. The article should be expanded and improved, not deleted. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  08:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. I contested the PROD. As other editors noted, the subject passes the WP:POLITICIAN guideline. A quick search for reliable sources yielded some relevant hits:, . Other issues like being a stub or an autobiography are to be fixed by editing. • Gene93k (talk) 09:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Additional comment. The nominator's assertion that the article was written by the subject does not appear to be true. The creator is an admin who has been on Wikipedia since 2006. The stub was created because the subject is notable and should be included. Also WP:NOEFFORT is not a valid reason to delete. • Gene93k (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment please note: a recently created page with no significant history, when i first propose it for deletion it has only one significant edit history, while the other one is infobox edit that means two edit history since its creation--DaeafcMnnC (talk) 10:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Additional comment. the only source they are giving is an old source which is more like a yellow page and is even contradicting the BLP date of birth that they originally added!!--DaeafcMnnC (talk) 11:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Still more. Please note that the nominator has twice reverted attempts to add sources and content to the article. This and other behavior by the nominator is forming a disturbing pattern. • Gene93k (talk) 11:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note that the source they gave is even contradicting the BLP date of birth that they originally added!! This and other behavior by the opposer is forming a disruption.--DaeafcMnnC (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cullen328 WP:Politician-thank you-RFD (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Speaker of the Wyoming House of Representatives? Sounds pretty notable to me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per all of the above. Meets WP:POLITICIAN. "no value to be included in an encyclopedia" is not a valid delete reason. Connormah (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Satisfies WP:POLITICIAN notability requirements. clpo13(talk) 17:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I remember this guy..per WP:POLITICIAN all looks good -- Moxy (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as it meets WP:POLITICIAN. BTW the age of a source - as long as it is verifiable has no bearing on whether an article should be kept or not. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as per previous comments that he meets political notability guidelines as a member (and speaker) of a state legislature. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep – How is there any doubt about the notability of a speaker of a house of an American state legislature? Graham (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2015 (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.