- 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. Overwhelmingly obvious Keep. As stated numerous times, the person clearly passes the criteria. In order for the article to be deleted as promotional, it would require an overwhelming re-write, which it clearly doesn't. Areas that you have an issue with you can either choose to clean up yourself, or take to it's talk page ( non-admin closure) Dusti *Let's talk!* 01:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Ryan Fattman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Breach of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons Rockturtle ( talk) 21:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. Ryan Fattman is a state legislator, thus passing WP:POLITICIAN. The references in the article support that. Can the nominator elaborate on how this breaches BLP? • Gene93k ( talk) 01:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Easily meets WP:POLITICIAN. -- Hirolovesswords ( talk) 01:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. State legislator satisfies POLITICIAN #1, and I don't see anything scurrilous in there that would trigger BLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarityfiend ( talk • contribs) 02:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Procedural Keep: I don't get it. This has a pass on WP:POLITICIAN, it's properly sourced. If there's anything in it that tweaks BLP, then perhaps the nom could point it out. That would, however, be a content issue which should be taken to the article's talk page, and AfD isn't the proper venue for it. (I admit suspicion, as ever, about a nomination by a SPA for whom filing this AfD is his sole Wikipedia activity.) Ravenswing 03:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep – Looking at the nominator's three edits, I say Ravenswing may have hit it right on the head. United States Man ( talk) 04:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Subject state legislator clearly satisfies WP:POLITICIAN. Moreover, the footnoted independent, reliable sources already included in the article seem more than sufficient to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Any problems with "promotional" aspects of the article are WP:NPOV issues to be resolved by article editing, not article deletion. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 21:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Delete. I submitted the article for deletion because I feel it is not written from a neutral stance. Yes the subject of the article fits the criteria for BLP but the political career section (specifically the policy issues subsection) looks like something straight from a personal website. If you look at another politician, such as Rob Portman, his atricle is written from a much more neutral stance. BPL are required to be written form a neutral stance NPOV. I considered submitting the article for speedy deletion because I felt it fits the criteria for promotion Template:Db-g11. Rockturtle ( talk) 15:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Struck delete vote by nominator. Your nomination is your vote. Neutrality issues can be dealt with in the course of normal editing. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- So, I'll bite. You felt that there were parts of the article that are promotional? What prevented you from editing those out? Anything that isn't sourced to a reliable source is liable for removal. You could have done that, and WP:BEFORE enjoins you to try before filing an AfD. Ravenswing 17:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Promotional tones can be fixed without necessarily having to resort to deletion — the problem you've identified doesn't pertain to the whole article, either, but merely one specific section within it. So by all means, flag it for {{ NPOV-section}}, but the reason you've identified doesn't make the entire article a candidate for outright deletion. To qualify for deletion as "promotional", an article has to be so horribly written from top to bottom that killing it off and restarting the whole thing from scratch would be easier than just rewriting the problematic parts for tone — we do not nuke and pave every single article that happens to have had a couple of value adjectives added to it, if it would take all of five seconds to just remove the value adjectives. Bearcat ( talk) 16:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Fattman clearly is notable. It's even more egregious, considering at one time there were states where all the Democrat state senators and virtually none of the Republicans had articles. That was odd. However clearly Fattman passes notability guidelines as they exist at present. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep (speedy if possible.) Members of a state legislature do qualify for articles under WP:NPOL, and any content problems can be flagged for repair through the normal editing process — the article as a whole is not so egregiously written as to require the WP:NUKEANDPAVE treatment, so there was no valid reason to jump straight to an AFD nomination as the first line of response. (And, for that matter, I absolutely share Ravenswing's suspicions about brand new users whose very first contribution to Wikipedia is to initiate or participate in an AFD nomination.) Bearcat ( talk) 16:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy keep: clearly notable per WP:POLITICIAN, nomination does not advance a valid reason for deletion, lots of keep !votes – why hasn't this been closed already? BethNaught ( talk) 14:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly, as a member of a state legislature. Nominator seems to have mistaken AfD for cleanup. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:32, 29 July 2014 (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.
- 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. Overwhelmingly obvious Keep. As stated numerous times, the person clearly passes the criteria. In order for the article to be deleted as promotional, it would require an overwhelming re-write, which it clearly doesn't. Areas that you have an issue with you can either choose to clean up yourself, or take to it's talk page ( non-admin closure) Dusti *Let's talk!* 01:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Ryan Fattman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Breach of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons Rockturtle ( talk) 21:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. Ryan Fattman is a state legislator, thus passing WP:POLITICIAN. The references in the article support that. Can the nominator elaborate on how this breaches BLP? • Gene93k ( talk) 01:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Easily meets WP:POLITICIAN. -- Hirolovesswords ( talk) 01:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. State legislator satisfies POLITICIAN #1, and I don't see anything scurrilous in there that would trigger BLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarityfiend ( talk • contribs) 02:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Procedural Keep: I don't get it. This has a pass on WP:POLITICIAN, it's properly sourced. If there's anything in it that tweaks BLP, then perhaps the nom could point it out. That would, however, be a content issue which should be taken to the article's talk page, and AfD isn't the proper venue for it. (I admit suspicion, as ever, about a nomination by a SPA for whom filing this AfD is his sole Wikipedia activity.) Ravenswing 03:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep – Looking at the nominator's three edits, I say Ravenswing may have hit it right on the head. United States Man ( talk) 04:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Subject state legislator clearly satisfies WP:POLITICIAN. Moreover, the footnoted independent, reliable sources already included in the article seem more than sufficient to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Any problems with "promotional" aspects of the article are WP:NPOV issues to be resolved by article editing, not article deletion. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 21:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Delete. I submitted the article for deletion because I feel it is not written from a neutral stance. Yes the subject of the article fits the criteria for BLP but the political career section (specifically the policy issues subsection) looks like something straight from a personal website. If you look at another politician, such as Rob Portman, his atricle is written from a much more neutral stance. BPL are required to be written form a neutral stance NPOV. I considered submitting the article for speedy deletion because I felt it fits the criteria for promotion Template:Db-g11. Rockturtle ( talk) 15:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Struck delete vote by nominator. Your nomination is your vote. Neutrality issues can be dealt with in the course of normal editing. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- So, I'll bite. You felt that there were parts of the article that are promotional? What prevented you from editing those out? Anything that isn't sourced to a reliable source is liable for removal. You could have done that, and WP:BEFORE enjoins you to try before filing an AfD. Ravenswing 17:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Promotional tones can be fixed without necessarily having to resort to deletion — the problem you've identified doesn't pertain to the whole article, either, but merely one specific section within it. So by all means, flag it for {{ NPOV-section}}, but the reason you've identified doesn't make the entire article a candidate for outright deletion. To qualify for deletion as "promotional", an article has to be so horribly written from top to bottom that killing it off and restarting the whole thing from scratch would be easier than just rewriting the problematic parts for tone — we do not nuke and pave every single article that happens to have had a couple of value adjectives added to it, if it would take all of five seconds to just remove the value adjectives. Bearcat ( talk) 16:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Fattman clearly is notable. It's even more egregious, considering at one time there were states where all the Democrat state senators and virtually none of the Republicans had articles. That was odd. However clearly Fattman passes notability guidelines as they exist at present. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep (speedy if possible.) Members of a state legislature do qualify for articles under WP:NPOL, and any content problems can be flagged for repair through the normal editing process — the article as a whole is not so egregiously written as to require the WP:NUKEANDPAVE treatment, so there was no valid reason to jump straight to an AFD nomination as the first line of response. (And, for that matter, I absolutely share Ravenswing's suspicions about brand new users whose very first contribution to Wikipedia is to initiate or participate in an AFD nomination.) Bearcat ( talk) 16:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy keep: clearly notable per WP:POLITICIAN, nomination does not advance a valid reason for deletion, lots of keep !votes – why hasn't this been closed already? BethNaught ( talk) 14:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly, as a member of a state legislature. Nominator seems to have mistaken AfD for cleanup. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:32, 29 July 2014 (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.