- 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 delete. Neıl ☎ 12:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Colby Cooper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Don't think that this "senior adviser" to Condaleeza Rice is notable. Apparently he's in charge of her travel arrangements. Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources required by WP:BIO. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — The individual clearly exists. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He exists, but he's not the subject of any reliable sources, at least none that I see. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is chock full of them. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gah. And this is why we scroll down all the way to the bottom before saying anything. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Only one of the refs provided seem to be reliable (independant of the subject and a reputation for accuracy). And that ref only mentions him in passing - i.e. he hasn't received significat coverage. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And once again I second guess myself... Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; only one reference, which is only incidental and trivial coverage. The subject certainly exists, he just isn't notable. Celarnor Talk to me 02:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from being substantially undefined and totally arbitrary, so-called "notability" is also irrelevant. Verifiable existence is all that matters. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd agree with you if Wikipedia was striving to be an ideal encyclopedia, but sadly, isn't. Hopefully this can get changed at some point in time, but for the time being, Wikipedia includes only things that are particularly notable; in that regard, it's a specialized encyclopedia where the threshold for inclusion is notability, which while somewhat arbitrary, has clearly defined guidelines on what notability entails. Celarnor Talk to me
- We can change that, and the first step can be taken right here, right now. It's not like we're obligated to follow any of those "guidelines" or "rules" you mention anyway. They're only suggestions--merely descriptions of what has sometimes happened in the past that are totally unbinding on us in the present. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Guidelines are guidelines and policies are policies. You seem to be refusing to get the point. Yes, the Ignore All Rules policy stands, but it seems like you may be misunderstanding what Ignore All Rules is and what it is not. If you disagree with Wikipedia's notability policies, then propose to change them. Doing otherwise is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Ketsuekigata (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm disrupting nothing. I'm not advocating we "ignore all rules"--we have no rules to ignore in the first place! There's no need to try to change the "rules", because we're not bound by them in the first place. All we have is our own judgment as to what's in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Make an argument based on that, rather than just quoting a bunch of arbitrary, meaningless, and irrelevant alphabet soup. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Kurt Weber is impervious to argument, and seems to think he's joined Wikipedia circa 2004. The community used to have broad support for that idea, but has moved on. --Dhartung | Talk 04:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Guidelines are guidelines and policies are policies. You seem to be refusing to get the point. Yes, the Ignore All Rules policy stands, but it seems like you may be misunderstanding what Ignore All Rules is and what it is not. If you disagree with Wikipedia's notability policies, then propose to change them. Doing otherwise is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Ketsuekigata (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We can change that, and the first step can be taken right here, right now. It's not like we're obligated to follow any of those "guidelines" or "rules" you mention anyway. They're only suggestions--merely descriptions of what has sometimes happened in the past that are totally unbinding on us in the present. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:BIO. Ketsuekigata (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, has tenure in public view, but not notable for his own actions. Fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 04:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as organizer of important diplomatic conferences, and references to show it. DGG (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The two references provided do not establish notability. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DGG, but not per Kurt Weber. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Divinediscourse (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Editor blocked indef as a sockpuppet by Casliber per [1]--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:43, 21 April 2008 (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.