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 of the debate was No consensus - Keep. Tawker 05:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Marlowe[edit]

nn and possible vanity M1ss1ontomars2k4 18:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this singular example of hagiography. Singular in that I don't think I have ever seen an article with so many edits where so few of them have been by logged-in users; virtually the entire article is the work of anons. Not that it's a problem, except in as much as the lack of references makes it necessary to rely on the reputation of the editors, but pretty much the only contribs from accounts with user pages are the addition of tags. Anyway, appears to fail WP:BIO and looks very much like more Vaughancruft. Just zis Guy you know? 19:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are lots of biographies on Wikipedia, that some people may consider "low value." This seems to be particularly true of the slew of American editors who have been editing/recommending the page for deletion lately. It is particularly troublesome that some of the criticism is grounded in an attitude of 'this isn't interesting to non-American readers.' That seems to be contrary to the Wikipedia spirit. If Wikipedia is a community, then it should respect that not all content will be equally interesting to all readers (including our friends to the South), however, that does not necessarily make it worthy of deletion. If you check Keith's web site, he has been published in nearly every daily newspaper in Canada (http://www3.telus.net/keithmarlowe/media.html). I doubt any of the editors could say the same about themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.207.120.112 (talk • contribs)

• This IP is also from U of Windor, probally Keith since he was blocked by the admins from his other IP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.181.120.222 (talk • contribs)
• I find it interesting that 208.181.120.222 has also been blocked. Blogger82

• The above comment was signed as Blogger82. However, it was written by User:65.94.141.187, an IP address registered to Bell Canada.

• Why would you add the word 'however' to that? I fail to see how me using Bell Canada somehow distorts from my comments Blogger82

• Strong Delete I have checked some of the links, and most of the stories appear to only be on Keith's site. 71.202.41.210 21:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to 71.202.41.210: A lot of the Calgary Sun articles were in fact written by this Paul Jackson person, but i'm not sure how reputable the Sun is, as according to WikiPedia's article it's a tabloid. Also, no good results for Keith Marlow + Paul Jackson on Google. And what's Vaughancruft anyway? 71.131.61.196 21:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 71.131.61.196---You would be better served as using a Canadian news press engine rather than google for finding information on Marlowe. Blogger82

• The above comment was signed as Blogger82. However, it was written by User:65.94.141.187, an IP address registered to Bell Canada.

• Why would you add the word 'however' to that? I fail to see how me using Bell Canada somehow distorts from my comments Blogger82

• Because there is a possibility that someone from Canada (which would, of course, include people from University of Windsor and of course Keith Marlowe himself) could have been masquerading as you. Clearly, however, (according to the history) that is not the case (or at the very least you agree with User:65.94.141.187). Additionally, I like to leave others' comments alone while still keeping track of who said what. Hope this helps. BTW, in the future could you sign with four tildes? Like this: ~~~~ M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete The problem is Keith is the one who created this webpage, it has nothing relevant in the article to keep it, and when Admins or even users try to add to the content, the owner removes it. Wikipedia is about adding factual information, freely, no matter what. If you want to have a article on wikipedia, you should be prepared for people to add their thoughts and not censor what people say instead.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.181.120.222 (talk • contribs)

• Agreed except it is quite evident from the amount of editing from moderators that much of what occured on this webpage was the work of vandalism and personal attacks (which should be expected considering its a political figure involved). 208.181.120.222 somehow equates 'thoughts' with 'factual evidence'which is not always true As well, 208.181.120.222 (and everyone else) would have to argue that somehow Marlowe's term and Presidency were not a useful tool for understanding the fusion of the Conservative movement in Canada today (which subsequently is in government). Blogger82.

• The above comment was signed as Blogger82. However, it was written by User:65.94.141.187, an IP address registered to Bell Canada.

• Why would you add the word 'however' to that? I fail to see how me using Bell Canada somehow distorts from my comments Blogger82

User:208.181.120.222--How exactly do you know that it was Keith Marlowe who wrote the article in the first place? (disregard the history when making your case, because I could create an account with the name Keith Marlowe). Blogger82 (if it is indeed you): The article doesn't actually say how Marlowe's term changed anything with the Conservative movement in Canada. In fact, the conservatives voted away his youth wing after they merged. M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Does a person have to "change" something about a movement in order to have a Wikipedia page? I'm not sure Patrick Brown or Tasha Kherridan or any youth president really "changes" a movement per se. They are involved, and do what they can to defend the party's interests, the youth members' interests, and the conservative movement's interests. Marlowe was a vocal supporter of the merger from early on, and was a significant reason why the youth wing supported the merger in greater numbers than the party as a whole.

• Many people have attempted to clean this article up, and add other information about the subject, however the information is prompty deleted by the owner/creater of the wiki.

• Information such as...adding how people believe that he goes to a bad school? Trying to erase the entire wiki? I'm not sure why anyone would keep that sort of personal opinion on there, it adds nothing to the community's knowledge about this subject. If you wish to see more types of vanadlism, you're more than free to check out the comments section.Blogger82

• Strong Keep Keith Marlowe has been published in the largest newspapers in the country (The Globe and Mail, the National Post, the Calgary Herald, the Halifax Chronicle Herald, the Vancouver Province, the Ottawa Citizen, the Calgary Sun, the Whitehorse Star, etc.) including several of the major university campus papers. Marlowe was the president of the PC Youth Federation, which is roughly comparable to the College Republicans or the College Democrats. If you have a problem with Keith, a young conservative leader in Canada, having a Wikipedia page, then I expect that you will all have a problem with other young conservatives, such as Paul Gourley or Eric Hoplin (both national presidents of the College Republicans) having Wikipedia pages as well. Look their pages up...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.207.120.102 (talk • contribs)

• Erm...you're also from U. of Windsor. You better not be another of User:137.207.120.112's sockpuppets.M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Irregardless of whether this happens to be true or not, 137.207.120.102 makes a good point in that wikipedia would indeed have to go delete almost every single page from every single youth president that is on here in the entire world. I would consider that to be an extreme precedent set. Blogger82

• The above comment was signed as Blogger82. However, it was written by User:65.94.141.187, an IP address registered to Bell Canada.

• No, the user does not make a good point. Most of the other articles you mention are not anywhere near the vanity as this page. And if you feel other wiki's should be deleted, please feel free to go ahead. Wikipedia is successful because of the input of our members and community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BowRiver75 (talk • contribs)

• Input is one thing. I doubt Wikipedia is successful because people just go around and delete pages. If you have an edit, go for it.

• Delete Vanity page and not notable. Sources are fairly questionable as well.--Cini 16:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources like, oh... the newspaper? :)

• Strong Keep. I think to delete this page is to ignore a critical part of history with regards to the merger of the Canadian Conservative movement in Canada. For someone that is looking into information concerning the final days of the Progressive Conservative party this page would be a suitable resource in conjunction with other pages. As I added some information that I considered to be quite relevant to this page, I suppose I bear some resposability for some of the information on it. However this can all be resolved through the use of edits and not through outright deletion. That would be considered an extreme measure. 137.207.120.102 is quite correct in pointing out that there remain many cases of other youth Presidents (from other parties and from other countries) on wikipedia. I doubt very much that as much internal-party change occured while those young men were in power that occured under Marlowe's. To remain fair, wikipedia would have to delete their webpages as well. Blogger82

• The above comment was signed as Blogger82. However, it was written by User:65.94.141.187, an IP address registered to Bell Canada.
• Why would you add the word 'however' to that? I fail to see how me using Bell Canada somehow distorts from my comments Blogger82

• Strong Delete Seems to be a vanity piece and not really relevant to modern canadian politics or recent political history. It also has nothing to do with any political mergers, as Keith Marlowe is not noted in any Conservative Party documents as playing a key role. Also it should be note that Blogger82 contributed to the content earlier (most of the vanity content), and the IP address 137.207.120.102 is from U of Windsor. Why does all of the supporters for this page come from this school? It is true that other "youth" leaders have wiki pages, but no where come close to the overblown content that is in this article. Delete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BowRiver75 (talk • contribs)

• I'm fully in favour of keeping the article, and I'm not from the U of Windsor... how does your point make sense? Again, edit the page, don't delete. Haven't seen you contribute, other than in a negative way.

• Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Unsigned-Bow River. I freely admitted I added content to this article (making your statement irrelevant), and I further added I would edit it out (which would be a far better solution) than deleting the whole thing.

You are also assuming that I am from the University of Windsor "All" which is not the case. Blogger82.

• Delete Does not meet basic requirements for an article. Vanity peice. Lacks basic ciation.
• Keep I've read the posts on this page, and as someone who was involved with the party when the merger occurred, I do find some value in the page. I think deletion would be rather extreme, given that there are biographies of most of the more recent PC Party presidents (Bruck Easton, etc.) on Wikipedia. I think the page could be perhaps made more factual, and I will attempt to do an edit on the site this evening. At any rate, I hope the edit will appease the masses, and we can move on...

• Bruck Easton is not a PC Youth president. Also, adding ((citation needed)) everywhere is NOT helping anyone. I look forward to seeing further edits, however. M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm aware that Bruck is not and was not a PC Youth president. My point is simply that Bruck and others who were involved with the PC Party have Wikipedia entries, and there isn't nearly this level of kerfuffle. Again, let's edit the page, but not delete. I think there's been enough discussion here, and it's time to move forward one way or another. I would suggest we move forward in a positive, constructive way. Let's make a decision. I say keep, and edit.

• Too many of the owner's Sock Puppets are taking over this discussion which is against Wiki policy. Please delete this article and let's get on with it.

The article does not meet basic requirements set out by wikipedia. Why keep something that does not qualify?

• Keep. The President of the Youth Wing of one of Canada's then leading political parties makes him notable enough for mine. Needs editing though. This was nominated for speedy deletion but doesn't meet the criteria. Capitalistroadster 03:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article of Keith Marlowe is pretty bad. Loged in users could do a better job. Not that they are bad. Someone needs to put more references, I will try to find some more info on him. I dont think it is necessarily worthy a deletion. FellowWikipedian (A person from Canada) 11:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

President of the youth wing for one of Canadas lesser powerful political parties. According to wikipedia, for a political individual to have a page they must have held office in some level of government. Marlowe fails to meet that. Also this has been up now for five days. And should be deleted soon.

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.