Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tedford Williamson


 * 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Tedford Williamson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unnotable local city councilor created for self promotion. User:Billy Hathorn, now banned but still active with sock puppets, started this article, which is mainly sourced to one article written by Hathorn in a local history journal (also up for afd at Articles for deletion/North Louisiana History (North Louisiana History nomination)). The two minor sources not by Hathorn are bizjournals.com about him being "affiliated" with a concrete company owner and deadlink to an image. Tedford Williamson fails to meet Notability (people). It seems like this article was simply one of many articles User:Billy Hathorn created to promote his work, and is one reason the community was annoyed and led to his ban. (See: "Billy Hathorn appears to create a new article for every single obituary or newspaper story he reads" at Requests for comment/Billy Hathorn.) SalHamton (talk) 07:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 28.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  07:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, subject of AfD does not appear to have received significant coverage in any non-primary reliable sources, therefore subject clearly fails WP:GNG. Being a member of a non-major city council does not make an individual automatically notable per WP:POLITICIAN.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Subject does not meet the prongs of WP:POLITICIAN as a member of a city council. Enos733 (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2013 (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.