Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray Joseph Cormier (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 10:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ray Joseph Cormier
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article fails to establish sufficient notability to meet notability guidelines. Activities appear to be no more significant than incidents of petty theft, or occasional graffiti. Canadian House of Commons events may be slightly notable - enough to be mentioned in THAT article, but not significant enough for the perpetrator to be mentioned in their own right (compare Jason Hatch, a member of Fathers 4 Justice who scaled the UK house of commons dressed as Batman, or Eddie Gorecki and Jolly Stanesby who did the same on the Royal Courts of Justice) Clinkophonist (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article needs serious clean up, but meets the requirements set forth in WP:N.  He's been the subject of several non-trivial sources.  Maybe all those newspapers should have not written about him, but they did, and in doing so they made him notable.  Not wanting those sources to exist does not make them disappear.  There is WAY more than enough reference here to support notability.  Indeed, this is a borderline WP:SNOW situation.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  02:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * They are minor newspapers. Its like someone who wins a gooseberry jam contest in Winchester, getting reported in the local press, then going into a similar contest contest in Newcastle, and winning that too, so getting a mention in the local press there as well; they aren't notable, despite being mentioned in several local press articles. Having lots of references in an article doesn't make it notableClinkophonist (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned at the last AFD, the following are major metropolitan dailies in markets of more than a million people: Edmonton Journal, Ottawa Citizen, Vancouver Sun, Kansas City Times, Halifax Daily News. They're not the New York Times, the Washington Post, or The Daily Telegraph, but they're certainly on the next tier.  Making statements like "they are minor newspapers" makes me seriously question whether you made any attempt at research for opening this AFD. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Another nomination so soon after the last one ended in a keep consensus, raising essentially exactly the same issues, is borderline tendentious. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sarcasticidealist. In addition, there are a number of editors working on improving the article and they should be given more time to access non-online sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom  02:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - seems an interesting and notable character. Plenty of sources, nicely-referenced and -sized article. Furthermore, the previous AfD was only a couple of weeks ago - why is this second one really necessary? ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 10:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep on procedural grounds, like the 3 votes above; this is too soon after a previously closed discussion to re-open it. On the substance, weak keep; the biog. doesn't seem wildly notable, but those who know the Canadian media (which I don't) seem to be fairly consistent that the subject has been widely referenced. seglea (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Borderline KEEP - Although I am not fully sure if this biography meets notability guidelines, this article survived an AfD on 18 February 2009, less than two weeks ago. It is improper to nominate it again so soon. We can't just keep re-nominating articles for AfD until we get a result we like. Kingturtle (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin - biased canvassing has taken place. Hipocrite (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Canvassing is always biased (at least I can't think of how it wouldn't be). Are you referring to Canvas? I don't really know how that can be applied to this AFD? Could you elaborate on your concern?Smallman12q (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * At least one notification was sent out to a past participant in the 1st AFD that !voted "keep," asking them to participate here. Similar notifications were not sent out to any "delete" !voters. Hipocrite (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This should be on the Talk page. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This person has no notability which makes him a good candidate for a wikipedia article. Civil disobedience campaigns can be grounds for inclusion, but in looking at the article and the sourcing I don't believe this individual merits inclusion at this time. JRP (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - apparently passes the reliable sources guideline, but I don't think there's anything in this article that really amounts to a claim of notability. There seems to be nothing especially significant or important about this man that makes him deserving of a Wikipedia article; he's simply a religious protester who has received some local press attention, but we're not exactly talking Fred Phelps here. (Full disclosure: I found out about this AFD after seeing the message posted by User:Clinkophonist at Articles for deletion/Gail Trimble. Don't know if that counts as canvassing or not, but it seems worth mentioning.) Robofish (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete- As was stated above, this article fails to state how this person is notable. --Mblumber (talk) 04:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The article shows that he has received coverage from multiple reliable third party sources. That is the definition of notability.  Could you clarify what you mean? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep per WP:POLITICIAN and refs from reputatable sources. Spinach Monster (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2009 (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.