Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herbert Heron (writer)
- 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. (non-admin closure) ~ Tails Wx 22:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Herbert Heron (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Yet another hyperlocal politician in the walled garden created to boost Carmel-by-theSea who fails WP:NPOLITICIAN as mayor of a tiny town, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The article is filled with fluff and neither demonstrates nor verifies notability. He acted in a play which had 1,000 attendees. This is true barrel scraping. This is a Born - Lived - Died article about a WP:ROTM person who was doubtless notable to the who loved him 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Politicians, and California. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, Theatre, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Carmel-by-the-Sea,_California#Modern_era: where he is listed with a source; coverage exists so that other sources can be added and some content merged.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC) (see below, given sources presented, for the sake of transparency, note that I received a message inviting me to reconsider my !vote in light of new sources).-Mushy Yank (talk) 19:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)- Keep. Someone has eviscerated this article -- I don't know if they were right or wrong to do so, but it is impossible to evaluate the article without this material, and so clearly it should be kept unless someone explains why they though the deleted sources were not acceptable even for non-controversial material. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! Yes, indeed, removed sources tend to prove a much better article is possible, I am therefore not opposed to a plain Keep, another solution being a Merge with Forest Theater. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Eviscerating and then nominating this article makes sense if you understand the context of User:Greghenderson2006's eventual site block. Greg spent many years building a "walled garden" of articles about people, buildings and institutions that were famous in the small community of Carmel-by-the-Sea. His articles all used self-published sources, no matter how often he was told to stop, and that's what was deleted in this article. If you're interested, here's the final ANI discussion which led to Greg's site ban. Toughpigs (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not satisifed with your response, because the edits that were made in deleting the sources and content were really bad edits that left the article (and the other similar articles) ungrammatical and virtually unreadable. It would be expremely helpful for someone to list the specific sources that you object to and detail why they are not acceptable, even for non-controversial facts, and then we can make better edits or, possibly, merge, redirect or delete. But these arguments that the article should be deleted simply because the person who created it was blocked, and/or because it was one of several articles used to build out information about the locality, does not explain why the person is not notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, just to be clear: I personally had nothing to do with deleting anything from this article. I just remembered the ANI discussions, so I wanted to provide that context. Toughpigs (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions Djflem (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Djflem, pray elaborate: regarding whose comments and for what reason should we read this extremely long essay? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Wanted to address the 'walled garden' comment and the idea that any and or all articles written by Greghenderson should be deleted. Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF is not valid reason for deletion.Djflem (talk) 04:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying! I agree with you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Wanted to address the 'walled garden' comment and the idea that any and or all articles written by Greghenderson should be deleted. Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF is not valid reason for deletion.Djflem (talk) 04:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Djflem, pray elaborate: regarding whose comments and for what reason should we read this extremely long essay? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions Djflem (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, just to be clear: I personally had nothing to do with deleting anything from this article. I just remembered the ANI discussions, so I wanted to provide that context. Toughpigs (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for this clarification of the context. I still don't think eviscerating and then nominating a page is a good approach, but, honestly, that's just me. As for "self-published sources", maybe that was the reason you blocked that user but may I ask if Watkins, R. G., Hoyle, M. F. (1925). History of Monterey, Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties, California: Biographical S.J. Clarke (1925) was self-published? It was removed (used 5 times). Thanks again. (I will stand by my
triple!vote, if I may; opposed to deletion). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not satisifed with your response, because the edits that were made in deleting the sources and content were really bad edits that left the article (and the other similar articles) ungrammatical and virtually unreadable. It would be expremely helpful for someone to list the specific sources that you object to and detail why they are not acceptable, even for non-controversial facts, and then we can make better edits or, possibly, merge, redirect or delete. But these arguments that the article should be deleted simply because the person who created it was blocked, and/or because it was one of several articles used to build out information about the locality, does not explain why the person is not notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Eviscerating and then nominating this article makes sense if you understand the context of User:Greghenderson2006's eventual site block. Greg spent many years building a "walled garden" of articles about people, buildings and institutions that were famous in the small community of Carmel-by-the-Sea. His articles all used self-published sources, no matter how often he was told to stop, and that's what was deleted in this article. If you're interested, here's the final ANI discussion which led to Greg's site ban. Toughpigs (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! Yes, indeed, removed sources tend to prove a much better article is possible, I am therefore not opposed to a plain Keep, another solution being a Merge with Forest Theater. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to List of mayors of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California. Djflem (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Djflem apparently the page was deleted; so maybe another target could be considered? Mushy Yank (talk) 19:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: meets GNG. - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - concur with SchroCat, above. Tim riley talk 09:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: There is some coverage here, here, here and here. I think its enough to pass GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 11:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - a perfectly notable article Jack1956 (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep; I'm content with the sources uncovered to pass GNG. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:21, 5 November 2024 (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.