Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Noce


 * 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   delete. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Robert Noce

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

fails WP:POLITICIAN, and the only real coverage falls foul of WP:BLP1E. There is also an OTRS removal request; ticket number 2010080910014195, for y'all in the system. Ironholds (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This article is often edited to seek to remove the notable item of the private jet scandal with which this person is associated. I've no idea who the guy is, but the scandal appears to add to his notability. I've reverted a load of attempts at removing it from the article on the basis that it is cited. I am suspicious of any deletion request through OTRS as an attempt at whitening the gentleman's name by removing what appears to be an authoritative cited issue of direct interest and relevance to him. I have no political or other interest in the gentleman or the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please show how it passes WP:BLP1E? Ironholds (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please show how it fails it. He is notable for more than the ATCO scandal. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Such as...? The inclusion guidelines are negative in nature; when a valid argument against inclusion is cosnidered, it is up to article creators and those arguing for its inclusion to show that it is important. What else is he notable for? Ironholds (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't bother me one way or the other if this article is deleted. I have stated my thoughts for retention. I neither know nor care who this guy is. But it seems to me that those proposing deletion need to make the strongest argument when the article has been around and this kept by consensus, for a reasonable length of time. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It has not been kept by consensus; it just hasn't been considered either way before. You are not obliged to give an actual reason for keeping it, but similarly the closing administrator isn't obliged to consider the waste of characters that is your rationale. "Fiddle Faddle" is accurate. Ironholds (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem attacks are amusing, uncivil and have no place in a deletion discussion. That something has not been considered in this manner before does not mean that there is no consensus. Until your nomination the consensus was nemine contradicet. By your rationale every single article here must survive a deletion discussion. Patently that is not so. I have no further interest in the words of someone who acts with rudeness. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, by definition something never being discussed means there is no consensus over it; it means, however, that there is no consensus to either delete or keep. Once a discussion is started, whether it is by CSD or AfD, the onus is on the keepers to show why it should be kept; our entire notability system is built on the principle that X references must be found. If the balance of probability went the other way, people trying to delete an article would be required to show that there is not sufficient mention of the subject in all written works known to man. Patently, that is not the case. Your dismissal of my statements on the grounds of rudeness would be worth more if you had at all replied to my comment, most of which was based around the obvious invalidity of your argument (to summarise: you haven't so far made one). Ironholds (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes notability for a politician on point 2 (2.Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city.)  At least, I consider Edmonton to be a major metropolitan city.  143.210.103.223 (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The press coverage being of this single event, which fails WP:BLP1E. Ironholds (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't refering to the scandal-related parts, I was refering to him as a person. Being elected to a metro council makes him noteworthy, which means that he should have an article. Red Fiona (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN; he was on the city council and ran for mayor but was not elected. The so-called private jet scandal is trivial: he and three other city council members once accepted a free ride on a corporate jet. If that's what passes for a major scandal in Canada, then your reputation for niceness is more than justified. More to the point, the news coverage provided is trivial; he is mentioned along with the others in two television news stories about the incident; that's hardly significant coverage. A search of Google News mostly finds other people by the same name, all of whom are apparently more notable than he is. (BTW a question to Fiddle Faddle, who is convinced this "scandal" justifies keeping the article; would you defend articles about the other three councilors involved, namely Larry Langley, Bryan Anderson (politician), and Rose Rosenberger, with equal vehemence? Oops, two of them don't even have articles and the third is a stub which IMO should also be nominated for deletion.) --MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What vehemence? Do not attribute vehemence to me, please. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry. I thought "I've reverted a load of attempts..." sounded pretty vehement. No offense intended. --MelanieN (talk) 04:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - this person, an Alberta municipal council member, is on the cusp of notability. I believe that in such cases, AfDs for Biographies of Living People should default to deletion, especially if the subject has expressed concern about the article. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The claim to WP:POLITICIAN is marginal; WP:BLP1E is relevant, and (I assume) the subject requests the deletion of the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2010 (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.