Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Staines


 * 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 merge to Shire of Banana per WP:ATD-M. While it's clear that a stand-alone article is not warranted, those favoring deletion without merging fail to address the merge-proposals in any way. As such, WP:PRESERVE favors retaining the material in some form or another over complete deletion. Regards  So Why  08:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Robert Staines

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm nominating this with regret, but I just cannot see how this article qualifies. As a local politician he doesn't satisfy WP:POLITICIAN, and I can't see the coverage for WP:GNG; a few fairly standard obituaries, the somewhat substantial ones only in local papers, just don't cut it. Frickeg (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   01:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   01:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   01:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete it does feel sad that we keep anyone who ever served in the Queensland state legislature but don't keep this "Chairman of the Shire of Banana". But there's no case that it meets WP:NPOL. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. The shire/county level of political office does not confer an automatic WP:NPOL pass in and of itself — an officeholder at that level can qualify for an article if he can be well-sourced over WP:GNG as significantly more notable than the norm, but is not automatically entitled to an article just for existing. But nothing here demonstrates a strong claim to wider notability — the only other thing here, really, is that he was a non-winning candidate in state and federal elections, but non-winning candidacies also don't constitute notability in and of themselves. And the sourcing isn't building a strong case for notability per GNG, either: right across the board, it consists of WP:ROUTINE coverage of the election campaigns of the type that every candidate in any election could always show, routine obituaries, and a family genealogy. This is not what it takes to make a rural shire councillor notable just for being a rural shire councillor. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge a summary of Robert Staines into Shire of Banana. I agree that it's difficult to argue for notability but I hate to see well-sourced information lost to the reader. The Shire article has an under-populated section to list its chairmen and mayors and notability is not a requirement for mention there. Kerry (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge per User:Kerry Raymond above; definitely this is potentially useful information that I'd hate to lose, and it won't be undue on the shire's page. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC).
 * Merge A very definite case of non GNG material that should salvaged.  Aoziwe (talk) 10:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep As the creator of this bio no one will be surprised that I'm saying keep. I have added copy that I hope shows that this was not just an ordinary unsuccessful candidate. Given his high level federal opponent and the high esteem in which he was held by that man I see Staines as being notable. Please don't bury him in a merge or ditch him. His name in black, in lists and articles, will deprive readers of the ability to connect the dots and reach a fuller life story. Keep him alive in blue. Please don't bother responding to my comments as you won't change my opinion on the futility of these notablility discussions. I realise all comments are in good faith but as everyone has editing and writing to do lets just on with it. Cheers Castlemate (talk) 12:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not looking to change your mind here, and I really do appreciate the effort, but just registering that in my view the additions continue to be standard routine coverage for election candidates, which does not lead to notability. On the merge proposal, I have some concerns about WP:UNDUE (what about the rest of them, of which there are likely very many? Should we aim to profile all local mayors in LGA articles?). Frickeg (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Re: merging. There are some smatterings of info about mayors/chairmen in Qld LGA articles already, some of the larger LGAs have separate list articles for mayors. Let's worry about the problem of the overload of chairman information when the problem actually arises (current rate of development of those articles for small LGAs suggests it is unlikely to arise as a serious problem any time soon) and in any case I would still argue WP:NOTPAPER (and WP:UNDUE isn't an issue as nobody is suggesting we have a POV problem). Kerry (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting editors have a POV problem, but the Banana Shire article actually would if it gives extensive information about a single mayor without even mentioning most of the others, because that would suggest that Staines was vastly more significant than your average Banana Shire Chairman, and there's no evidence to suggest that is actually true. Frickeg (talk) 00:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Annoyed comment All this sadness and regret and concern at the loss of well sourced information. If Staines isn't important then just remove his name altogether and stop gnashing your teeth about a problem that doesn't exist in any sense in the real world. Start to question why it matters to you and stop throwing around all these trumped up policies. The man is dead, his inclusion on Wikipedia benefits no one but provides information. If you don't get over this I will strip the hell out of the bio and then you can argue about my WP:Vandalism. Castlemate (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Merge/Delete?
 * delete fails WP:NPOL and the basis of local coverage also fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric  04:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - manly qualities and for his inherent sense of fair play aside, the subject does not appear to meet notability criteria for politicians.--Rpclod (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947(c) (m) 23:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment This discussion is now longer than the harmless article you want to remove. The deletion discussion will remain forever but the useful information on Robert Staines will be deleted. This is indicative of how absurd editors chat fests really are. Castlemate (talk) 07:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * your comment above has zero bearing on the notability of this subject. We don't have WP articles simply because the information is WP:ITSUSEFUL. LibStar (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * it was not supposed to have any bearing on notability but to illustrate stupidity. Your "vote" for "delete" had no bearing on this debate as it introduced nothing to the aurgument. This call for deletion is stagnant. Castlemate (talk) 01:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've been resisting responding here, but honestly. I gave you every opportunity to improve the article before nominating it, gave you almost a month's notice in fact, went out of my way to make sure you would have every opportunity to respond, and I seem to remember you assuring me you wouldn't be offended if I did nominate it in the end. I don't appreciate your snide comments towards me or other editors here, I certainly don't appreciate you calling me or others stupid, and if you're not interested in Wikipedia policies or the formation of consensus, which is really the bedrock of the way things work here, then I cordially suggest that perhaps Wikipedia isn't for you. Frickeg (talk) 02:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * yes edit summaries like this are clear personal attacks and failing to accept consensus. LibStar (talk) 05:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * the article dosent need improving. If it is so dangerous to have it on Wikipedia then reach consensus and remove it. As editors you are making fools of yourselves. You don't need me to attack you. The evidence of your stupidity is in every post where you worry so desperately worry about how sad you are and how much you regret having to tear down a perfectly respectable bio. If you have consensus then do your job. Don't accuse me of personal attacks. Castlemate (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * PS I'm not offended. I'm endlessly amused by this sort of discussion because I don't take this seriously. Castlemate (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * yet another personal attack As editors you are making fools of yourselves. If you don't take this seriously why do you endlessly argue here...? LibStar (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * because I find it endlessly entertaining. Just as I did when you and Frickeg both spent so much time arguing to tear down Trent Zimmerman before his election only to have the article replaced so so soon after his election. Your self important words speak for themselves. I am not attacking you. I don't need to as many are just enjoying you every time you enter these debates. Please find consensus and stop worrying about me and my opinion of you as an editor. Castlemate (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * the consensus here is that this article will be merged or deleted. You seem to have so much difficulty accepting this. As for Zimmerman if he wasn't elected he wouldn't have an article. And we generally do not create an articles for political candidates. You seem to have great difficulty accepting consensus which is a tenet of Wikipedia.  LibStar (talk) 05:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Move to close. I think an admin may have to make a call here between merge and delete. Keeping the discussion open is only prompting the article creator to engage in personal attacks, and it doesn't seem that anyone else wants to have their say. Frickeg (talk) 06:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Move to close. The articles creator finds your patronising tone as tedious as you find his comments to be personal attacks. The creator felt the article was quite acceptable. He found your tone distasteful from day one. It is this sort of commentary that scares so many away from Wikipedia - "honestly. I gave you every opportunity to improve the article before nominating it, gave you almost a month's notice in fact, went out of my way to make sure you would have every opportunity to respond, and I seem to remember you assuring me you wouldn't be offended if I did nominate it in the end. I don't appreciate your snide comments towards me or other editors here." This comment shows your typical bullying tone. Castlemate (talk) 08:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * and how about your clear personal attacks? LibStar (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record, here is my "distasteful tone", which Castlemate has carefully removed from his talk page. I leave it to others to judge. Frickeg (talk) 09:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh gee, nothing at all distasteful. In fact accusing others of being distasteful or "bullying " without evidence is indeed a personal attack. LibStar (talk) 09:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Listen to the two of you. Hilarious! What a pair!


 * 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.