Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Rimstead


 * 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 18:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Paul Rimstead
De-prodded, one-line article. Subject appears to have been an opinion columnist for a Toronto tabloid in the 70's and 80's. 79 unique, 253 total hits on google is low, but de-prod asserted meeting the 5k+ readership standard at WP:BIO. That standard applies to "authors, editors, and photographers" but pehaps not "Page 5 columnists", so another debate that should be given the full treatment.  Dei zio  01:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, well done to Robocoder for the WP:HEY effort, I think most concerns have been addressed. Just a wee bit of POV watch and fact citing to go.  Dei zio  19:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, stub clearly fails any attempt at being an article. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Zoe --Deville (Talk) 02:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BIO. I'm not convinced that 5K+ readership should be extended to newspaper columnists.--Isotope23 02:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no objections to the latest version.--Isotope23 14:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as it fails to provide the context to be a stub article. No prejudice against a subsequent version that is at least a stub is intended. GRBerry 02:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC) Keep - new version at this time is a good start.  GRBerry 17:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Isotope. If it did apply every small town newspaper writer would be in here. In any case, I don't like the 5k guideline anywsy. No prejudice against recreation of a version that makes a good argument for notability. JoshuaZ 02:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC) Need to think about the new version, will abstain for now. JoshuaZ 04:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I prodded, but I'm throwing a wrench into the Afd works. Please review the latest edit.  -- Robocoder 03:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed the "RIP" per WP:NOT a memorial. There are definite POV issues here.  I will look at it more closely tomorrow to see if he meets WP:BIO based on the new version.--Isotope23 03:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Verifiably a published author and columnist.  Not obvious to me what the problem is beyond the article needing cleanup.  Jkelly 04:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The original article read simply, "A popular writer for the Toronto Sun." -- Robocoder 04:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Deizio, even the current version. He does not appear to be exceptional and only the smallest of newspapers would fail to meet 5,000 readers. -- Kjkolb 06:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn-bio. --Ter e nce Ong 08:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Robocoder's valuable revisions; clearly meets notability standard for published book author (Prentice-Hall) as well as having award named after him at major Canadian university. Monicasdude 15:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I have located significant sources through Lexis/Nexis (which has a longer memory than Google) and will be updating accordingly. Thatcher131 17:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The revisions are good enough to verify notability, in my mind, and if Thatcher131 can make some adjustments to the article to make it more encyclopedic, I don't see why we couldn't keep it.  ekedolphin 00:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep the rewrite   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  19:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep the rewrite ... and I really like WP:HEY. AnonEMouse 21:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep not very notable, but rewrite is solid and subject squeaks by. Eusebeus 21:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * keep New version is much better and demonstrates possible notability. JoshuaZ 21:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep the rewritten edition. --[[Image:Flag of India.svg|20px]]Srik e it (  talk ¦  ✉  ) '' 00:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep somewhat notable.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:45, 3 May 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.