Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Proctor - Wikipedia

Article Images

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 no consensus, default to keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Why the page should be deleted? A couple reasons: Proctor wrote most of the article himself as an act of self-promotion in his political career and has now retired from public life and wishes for this page to go away. And no, I am not Proctor, I'm just his friend. Besides, several of the reference links are now dead. TheRealZajac (talk) 21:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the scourge of all Wikipedia policies, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored. A public personality not wanting information on Wikipedia is not sufficient reason to remove the information unless it is unsourced negative information about a living person. This article isn't, so it doesn't meet the criteria for deletion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Proctor is hardly a public figure anymore. Besides, most of the "sources" come from his own website, which no longer exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealZajac (talk • contribs) 00:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The article is cited and does a good job with a notable person. Recording history is exactly what an encyclopedia is all about. A ridiculous nomination without any WP Policy foundation at all. !! Justa Punk !! 09:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't even know why this was nominated, its an obvious keep, weel sourced and if anything just needs to be expanded up to current standards. Afro (Not a Talk Page) ^{- Afkatk} 09:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question, just how major are Pasadena Weekly and the other newspapers cited in the article? The relevant pages seem to indicate that they're low-to-mid circulation "alternative" papers. If so, and given that some of the other sources have disappeared, this might not meet WP:N. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Probable keep - The subject has quite a few claims to notability, and it's pretty well referenced. I can't find any reason to delete. It's a slightly promotional article, but that can be fixed. I'm slightly concerned about the...uh...majority(?) of the references, but I don't think it's too major an issue, not quite enough to delete. He may not be a public figure any more, but notability is not temporary, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 10:34, 30 December 2009 (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.