Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Plett

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP, pending rewrite. Golbez 01:26, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Don Plett

Appears to be a politician of no great import in Canada. Notability is borderline. Kelly Martin 01:31, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Keep - um, he's the president of the Conservative Party of Canada. This page, however, is a copyvio [1]. CDC (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I've now stubified this; the old copyvio version is here. CDC (talk) 01:46, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep CDC repaired the copyvio. A better article should one day fill out the stub. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You shouldn't remove the copyvio notice. --Spinboy 02:01, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There never was a copyvio notice. CDC only pointed it out on this VfD page above. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:15, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How would one handle the copyvio if it never went through the copyvio process? Delete the history up to the copyvio? --Deathphoenix 03:17, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd take it an admin would be bold and do so, unless there was something else retrievable in the history. Samaritan 14:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Notable figure in Canadian politics. Capitalistroadster 02:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in its non-copyvio form, per CDC (and thanks, CDC). --Death phoenix 03:17, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a protest against the idea that notability should be important in VfD. Klonimus 04:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Well, we can't have articles about every single person in the world. They must've done something to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia, right. 131.211.210.12 08:16, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - If a person's article is verifiable and NPOV, why not? DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:34, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Great Wikipedia Paper Shortage Klonimus 06:22, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for two reasons. It's a copyvio and copyright violation protocol should be followed, which calls for the new version to be written on the Temp page, and two, to counter Klonimus's extremism. Rick K 04:26, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Keep in spite of the fact that Klonimus is in favor of it. --Angr/_comhrá 06:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Klonimus should read WP:POINT and abide with it. R adiant _* 08:54, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Keep as an important politician. Notability itself, for the record, can become very POV. --Jamyskis 11:30, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's the president of the second-largest political party in canada, one that could form (<shudder>) the next government. Even if you think lack of notability is sufficient grounds for deletion, how could you think that he is non-notable? Ground Zero 14:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my defense, the article didn't state that he was anything other than a minor politician, and I don't profess to be an expert in Canadian politics. IMO, the notability of a subject should be evident from the article itself. The notable content was there, but it's buried all the way at the bottom -- normally notability is established early on. My mistake for not reading as deeply as I should. Kelly Martin 14:40, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. PedanticallySpeaking 16:26, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Keep to counter RickK's extremism. --SPUI (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This listing is clearly erroneous. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but you have to admit that the original article didn't cut to the chase. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 04:45, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

I have now listed it at Copyright problems and put a copyvio template on it, as should have been done when the copyvio was first discovered. A new version can be written at Don Plett/Temp. Rick K 04:58, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

- Disputing this because I see no evidence of a copyvio in the latest version of the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:41, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I sent a message to CDC's talk page asking him to write it, but you cited him in your edit summary, so I think it's okay. --Death phoenix 18:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.