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. Xclamation point 06:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Joseph Cormier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

NN individual. Sources are all from minor papers. The article has consistent COI issues and does not contribute to the encyclopedia Hipocrite (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Sources are from all major big city dailies from coast to coast in Canada spread over many years. The Kansas City Times is a major U.S. daily. Sources are International. MacLean´s is Canada´s National Weekly Magazine. The Article has lay dormant and unchanged from last July until yesterday. How can there be consistent COI issues? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)— DoDaCanaDa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Sources are trivial or color pieces from major dailies or local-interest from local interest papers spread over many years. You (and your socks) are the consistent COI issues. Hipocrite (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• At least you are now admitting the sources are from major dailies. How could you possibly know anything about consistent COI issues when you did not contribute to the Article or discuss anything about it in the Talk page other than just surfing in and placing the Article for Deletion tag on it yesterday? I may not be able to improve or edit it, but I will stand guard over it. If that causes conflict in those whose interest is seeing the the Article expunged from Wikipedia, so be it. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:SOUP Hipocrite (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not only a nn sourcing nightmare, but also an AUTO piece by a self-declared "prophet". Has eaten enough time of experienced editors who could be working on other, more significant, subjects. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - COI issues are not a reason to delete an article, and in my view the references are sufficiently numerous and distinct (geographically and temporally) to justify keeping it. Moreover, it's not really autobiographical; much of the current content was added by the article's creator, User:Earl Andrew. I agree completely that the behaviour of the subject with regards to the article has been problematic, but I don't see that as a reason to delete. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I think its borderline, and if the subject weren't causing such issues, I'd probably let it slide. Wikipedia is not paper. But self-declared prophet who did what, ran for office and lost? Uh, can we say Gastrich? Not notable, seriously. His sources are small newspapers from the seventies for the most part; we can look for someone local to the papers to go read the microfiche but I'm not seeing notability here, more like sourced Local Character. Good for them. My home town had a local character too, and I have not (and will not) write a WP article on him. If you take a look, the "news" seems to be mostly Caused a fuss at the local courthouse and got arrested for Disorderly Conduct kind of thing. This is NOT notability. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  This is why I put considerable weight in the variety of references. He's garnered media coverage from every corner of Canada, which I think makes him somewhat more than a local character, and these references have come from several different years, making him not a flash in the pan. As for what he did - well, he ran for office and lost, caused a ruckus at a variety of events, and travelled across the country acting like a prophet. Most importantly, though, he got coverage from multiple reliable third party sources while doing so. Also, your characterization of the sources as "small newspapers" is off—the majority of them are major dailies in markets of well over one million. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  My error on the sources; thank you for your AGF. I'm still thinking that he's more "color" than "substance" but clearly what we need here is more input from other editors. This is a borderline case at best, one I would not like to close. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly way over WP:N. Local sources are quite acceptable. And he has a lot of local coverage. COI is not a reason to delete. Hobit (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Chihuahua, an objective, open minded Editor with a neutral point of view could not write this: Caused a fuss at the local courthouse and got arrested for Disorderly Conduct kind of thing.

  The Article and Discussion was dormant since mid December. The controversy arose only today when after 8 months of checking from time to time to see if anyone improved it, I noticed for the first time the convoluted paragraph and corrected it without changing the essence of it. How is it you arrive shortly thereafter, having never contributed to improve or discuss the article before today, and revert it to the gibberish it was? Did you just just randomly surf in? You could not have possibly read and understood all the discussions in the talk or the old version in the history to make that frivolous statement having just arrived on the scene today.

  The same is true for Hipocrite. He arrived for the first time ever today and placed the tag for deletion. Again, is it random chance he just surfed to the Article?

  This is the Biography of a living person. It is evolving. I am not expired yet.

  Many of the References in the Article can be seen here:

  http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2003596&l=16beb&id=1294974109

  To accurately judge or form an opinion about this BLP you must be familiar with the old version here:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ray_Joseph_Cormier&oldid=220975243 While all the information is factually True, it is not yet encyclopedic. It does suggest potential for development and improvement.

  DoDaCanaDa (talk) 04:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC) note: user DoDaCanaDa has identified himself as the real life subject of the article: Ray Joseph Cormier [reply]

• weak delete while the subject has been mentioned in a number of reliable sources, the actual reasons for being mentioned in our current sources do not seem to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) and seem to be the type of material warned against in WP:IINFO. Simply being mentioned as running for office is not notable, being the sole member of a political/religious protest 'movement' is not notable, travelling across Canada .... well no. It is possible that we have not discovered the sources that cover the subject in manner that lends itself to providing encyclopedic content, but given what we have now I dont think so. -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Notability (people) defers back to the GNG which are clearly met. WP:IINFO says "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic". His coverage certainly goes beyond a single event. This article/topic is so clearly over the bar for inclusion I just don't understand the arguments against. Hobit (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Please see my questions and comments in the discussion page. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC) (this is updated by me)[reply]
  • Comment: Are you suggesting that sources from the 1970s and 1980s, of which there are quite a few, aren't as credible in establishing notability as those that are currently on the internet? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ResponseThe quick search I did didn't come up with anything like that. I'll have to try again and see what happens, I'll strike for now, thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question there are a huge number of sources claimed in the article, but little in the way of linked material. There is also a page (above in this discussion) which shows scans of some of these articles. So for those going with delete:
  • Do you believe that these articles aren't mainly about the topic? His name is in the titles of many of them.
  • Do you not believe those sources are real? I agree AGF meets COI, but the scans would seem to add some amount of evidence (though they could be hoaxes I suppose).
  • Do you think that there is some other problem with the sources? Folks have argued that "doing X isn't notable" but if the X is covered in multiple RS doesn't that make it notable per WP:N?
  • Is there something else I'm missing?

I'm just really not getting the arguments here in the face of the state of the article and it's rather large amount of sources which seem to me to be on point. Hobit (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue comes in here: "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not." (emph added) -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• We rarely delete articles that meet the sourcing requirements of WP:N and don't conflict with some other policy. BLP, ONEEVENT, etc. can be reasons to do so. But I'm not seeing any policy-based reason for deletion here. It sounds like you are arguing some variation of WP:JNN or maybe WP:IAR. Hobit (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and my position is that this does violate policies such as WP:NOT#NEWS. I see people arguing that a collection of not individually significant items makes significance. While that may be true in some instances, I dont see that for this article yet. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. As far as I'm aware, COI is no reason to delete an article, and I find that article in question to be well-enough sourced to warrant an article for those who are unfamiliar with but interested in the individual in question. The Jade Knight (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Argument is not coi; argument is NN. COI is making a mess of things, turning a borderline case - A Meh, Why bother to del? into a Way too much crap! case. I can rephrase if you prefer, but I think that's it in a nutshell. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - Widely varied sources indicates subject has notability, whether these were "color pieces" or not is irrelevant. An editor involved has apparently pissed someone off, but that's not an argument for deletion. --Gimme danger (talk) 19:46, 16 February 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.