Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Waugh: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:03, 26 October 2010

Rick Waugh

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. This one is open and shut. Ray^Talk 18:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No Delete Ray this is not open and shut. Rick Waugh like his opponent Floyd Bayne is notable as he has been covered by all major media in the Virginia 7th district, has been reported in national news (Waugh covered by the Rachel Madow show) just like Floyd bayne has been covered by all major media in the district and national media (Bayne has also been covered in international media). So both candidates are notable. 96.228.59.55 (talk) 13:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS GARBAGE. ERIC CANTOR IS JUST HAVING HIS OPPONENTS' PROFILES TAKEN DOWN. JUST ANOTHER DIRTY TRICK FROM ERIC CANTOR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmonder (talk • contribs) 01:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

KEEP at this time. He was elected in the primary election. Flatterworld (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, he was not. He was nominated by party leaders [1]. This is the second time you have claimed someone was "elected" in a primary election when in fact they were not. Please get your facts straight before citing them here. --MelanieN (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT. This request is taking the wrong path. The proper path is to use the Template:Merge to and Template:Merge from templates, invite all those involved in both articles, and discuss the issue until consensus is reached. There's no need for a rush to judgement in any of these cases. (Note: One person requesting a Merge is not a consensus, see Ed Potosnak example.)That's why these Merge Templates exist, and that's why they're (normally) used when the issue involves (but not necessarily limited to) a claim that a person is notable only for one event. If consensus is reached, then an actual merge of material rather than a simple delete, or even a delete and redirect, is done. See Scott Harper for an example of this. See Ann Marie Buerkle for an example of the opposite, showing no history at all of what was in the previous article. That article was actually deleted, then a redirect was added after the fact. That's why it's wrong to do deletes in these cases, and that's been the consensus achieved in many, many AfD requests for various political candidates over the years. An example of a non-merge redirect is Lisa Johnston (AfD consensus here). That's simply wrong, as a nominee notable even for an event still has notable information - it's just a question of where it belongs. There is no evidence of any actual merge of material in her case, which makes the election article shockingly unbalanced (aka Undue Weight). There seems to be a lot of confusion on the definition of 'merge' in these discussions. It is not a synonym for a redirect. There are two steps, and both must be taken. Or, the article should be allowed to continue to exist, with 'improvement tags' added as needed. Flatterworld (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per usual practice. The only article cited about him, in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, even describes him as "little-known". There's a reliable source telling us he is not notable! --MelanieN (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If 96.228.59.55 can provide links to all this coverage s/he claims, such as an appearance by Waugh on the Rachel Maddow show, I might change my opinion. --MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie, I never claimed Waugh was on the Rachel Maddow Show. I said his campaign was covered by the Rachel Maddow Show. His campaign was covered regarding his campaign signs being targeted with racial slurs. All You Had to do was SEARCH "RICK WAUGH RACHEL MADDOW" and walla http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/08/24/4963103-ugly-and-almost-misspelled-in-virginia Ray and others on wiki appear to be to lazy to do Google word search's 96.228.59.55 (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 *'''Merge'''  per usual practice. The only article cited about him, in the [http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2010/may/05/wagh05_20100504-222407-ar-160847/ Richmond Times-Dispatch], even describes him as "little-known". There's a reliable source telling us he is not notable! --[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 16:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 ::P.S. If  96.228.59.55 can provide links to all this coverage s/he claims, such as an appearance by Waugh on the Rachel Maddow show, I might change my opinion. --[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 16:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
+:::Melanie, I never claimed Waugh was on the Rachel Maddow Show. I said his campaign was covered by the Rachel Maddow Show. His campaign was covered regarding his campaign signs being targeted with racial slurs. All You Had to do was SEARCH "RICK WAUGH RACHEL MADDOW" and walla http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/08/24/4963103-ugly-and-almost-misspelled-in-virginia Ray and others on wiki appear to be to lazy to do Google word search's [[Special:Contributions/96.228.59.55|96.228.59.55]] ([[User talk:96.228.59.55|talk]]) 20:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)