Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray O. Wyland

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 keep as no consensus for the same reasons as the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Reed Horton. As in that AfD, no prejudice against starting a new deletion discussion if one is deemed necessary by an uninvolved party. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ray O. Wyland

Being one of the two founders of an organization doesn't make a person notable. Also, most of the sources come from Boy Scouts material, which is a POV. Miranda 00:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, NN and no sources. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 01:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person is not notable enough to warrant an independent article. There are hundreds maybe even thousands of founders of notable organizations. While Ray actions are commendable being one of two founders, Ray does not have enough other notable achievements to have an independent article. Also, the sources listed are mostly from the organization and are not independent enough to support the article. HistoricDST (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Putting articles up for AFD out of a sense of revenge just isn't appropriate. (This is.IMO, in response to the listing of the less well known founders of DST up for AFD.) See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities#Notability of Founders Naraht (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge - Preference is for keep, but I'd be ok with a merge into an overall Founders of Alpha Phi Omega. However, this is most certainly a bad faith nomination and that should be taken into consideration. Justinm1978 (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see how this is a bad faith nom? And it's also a little fishy that both you and Naraht are both members of Alpha Phi Omega - there's probably one of those secret frat-cult-member-stick-together things that obliges you to save Alpha Phi Omega articles from deletion riight? Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 02:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The only reason the nominator put this up for nomination was because several articles of hers were put up for nomination here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nellie Pratt Russell by me, and she highly disagrees with that. Rather than throw a huge stink about this, I'm willing to consider a merge into the main Alpha Phi Omega article or even merge this, plus the other bad-faith noms, into a generic "founders of Alpha Phi Omega" article. And the personal attack isn't really necessary. Justinm1978 (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reference better --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs more references, but given the national scope and history of the organization, the connection may grant some notability. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Show me references and I'll change my vote, but I can't just abandon WP:V. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 04:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gnews [1] Gbooks [2] and [3] --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment clearly a retaliatory WP:POINT for nomination (here "Fuck, let's just delete Alpha Phi Alpha's founders too" and here "Let's see, how about I AFD all of the Eagle Scout founders, and we will call it even."), see my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Reed Horton. Cannot endorse deletion, however merited. Pete.Hurd (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.