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 -- Y not? 02:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Katter[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Katter holds no public office or no public role LordFixit (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I make a statement in support of equal marriage rights, should I gain a Wikipedia article? Katter appears to have an article purely because he is the half-brother of someone who he disagrees with. Previously held very minor board roles. LordFixit (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can absolutely have an article for supporting equal marriage rights if you get remotely near the significant, independent coverage in reliable sources that Katter has. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NPOL concerning candidates for political office. LordFixit (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's not, nor has ever been, a candidate for political office. Oops. Did you read the article before you nominated it for deletion? The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may like to read WP:AFDEQ. 'Avoid personal attacks against people who disagree with you; avoid the use of sarcastic language and stay cool' LordFixit (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a personal attack to wonder why you've nominated an article for deletion citing politician and public office guidelines when the article makes obvious the person concerned has never so much as nominated for either. This would suggest either a) you didn't read the article, or b) you're really stretching to try and find justification for your nomination. Every argument you have essentially relies on people not reading the article, the attached sources which hit just about every major media outlet in Australia, and also ignoring the wide body of other sources, over a wide span of time, which could be used in the article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Katter is a prominent public figure who has been the subject of plenty of coverage, specifically about him, in reliable sources. He passes WP:GNG by a mile, and the nominators would actually do well to refresh their memory of that particular guideline. Even the most basic Google search makes it pretty obvious that Katter has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the suspect, and that this is ongoing. WP:NOTINHERITED is irrelevant when Katter is independently notable by passing WP:GNG, and talk about politician or public office guidelines is irrelevant when Katter has never so much as nominated for either. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (snow) - passes WP:GNG without too much trouble at all. Stalwart111 23:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor activist who does not pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject clearly but minimally passes GNG. Given that it will forever be a crap and puffery magnet, and so an ongoing headache for all concerned - not least the subject - we can all do without it until he moves much further away from the margin of notability. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know we had a WP:TOOHARDBASKET into which we could dump notable things we couldn't be bothered fixing or putting on our watch-lists. Hmm. Stalwart111 06:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess mine is a WP:BLP argument. He's notable - but marginally. The article is undoubtedly going to attract POV-pushers from all directions. Sometimes, it's going to be casting him in an awful light, sometimes in a saintly one. Since, in these circumstances, when the subject expresses a preference for the article to be deleted we accede to his preference, in the absence of any knowledge of the subject's preference I favour deleting it. You're free to differ. (If anyone has his email address, or can contact him without drawing the attention of hundreds of others such as tweeting him, please ask him how he feels about having a Wikipedia "biography".) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See, now I was trying to be tongue-in-cheek and you go and ruin it with a great idea. Ha ha. Actually, in this instance I'd be keen to know what the subject thinks but I'm not sure how anyone would go about that. Is there any way OTRS could help? Stalwart111 11:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who is still mulling this one over, I cannot tell you how little I want to hear Carl Katter's opinion on the matter. The subject contacting us to let us know they'd prefer deletion (i.e. that the article has bothered them, or distressed them, or blatantly misrepresented them) is one thing; actively seeking out their opinion is another matter entirely, and to my mind completely inappropriate for an AfD. Frickeg (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo did it the other day, actually (over a naming dispute, not an AfD). But let's not argue this point here. I won't be contacting Mr Katter. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am a member of the LGBT community myself. I have nothing against Carl Katter himself, however I can't see how he is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. He has been in the news purely because he is the half-brother of Bob Katter, yet disagrees profoundly with Bob. LordFixit (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "I don't like the reasons this guy is a public figure" is not a reason for deletion in any guideline I've ever read. The significant, independent coverage in reliable sources is there in absolute spades, regardless of what you think of him or the reasons for his profile. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't put words in quotation marks that I never said. LordFixit (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your objection to his having a Wikipedia article lies in what you feel are the reasons for his being a public figure, rather than anything to do with Wikipedia guidelines on notability - which is why you keep skating around the very large amount of reliable sources directly about him (and thus, his obvious passage of WP:GNG. It's not an unreasonable paraphrase. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Smells of WP:INHERIT. What he has actually done is comparitively minor compared to more notable activists in the fight for gay rights. All sources fail to show him to be a notable figure in the field. He's a bit player at best and the most he has done in public is get into a Twitter fight. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 10:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note The above IP (124...) is a (now-blocked) sockpuppet of a banned user. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2014 (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.