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. This is a close argument, somewhere near the border of delete and no consensus. I am swayed to the delete arguments that despite the multiple sources, the totality of coverage is not sufficient to show notability. Kevin (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Joseph Cormier 3rd[edit]

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

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

Totally NN individual. Hipocrite (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• comment -- looking at the references, it seems there are quite a few articles giving him extensive coverage (I'm drawing that implication from looking at the titles). I can see coming to the conclusion that he seems unimportant from what the text of the article here says, but that's not how we usually approach the question of notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC) I should have looked more closely at the talk page first -- my apologies... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I am assuming you are asking editors to look closely at the BLP talk in depth before coming to a conclusion concerning this nomination for deletion. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 09:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Let it be noted! Hipocrite, who initiated this 3rd attempt at Deletion, initiated the process in March of this year and in February. I have to question his NPOV? There was no consensus the last time, and KEEP before that. Since the numerous references are pre-internet, unless an Editor has access to a pay newspaper archive site, they cannot be found easily. The subject, me, has offered to e-mail all the references listed and more, to any editor willing to take a look at them and try to improve the article.

Looking at an old version of this article, and it has undergone many changes, [1] while all the detailed information in it contained cannot be used because of Wikipedia policy on verifiable newspaper references, all the information is 100% factual in the biography of this living person. Steve Smith, Wikipedia´s resident expert in BLP´s, stated he would be working on improving it more this week. Perhaps Hipocrite just wants to jump the gun before it is made better? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Response DoDaCanaDa's statement is not accurate. I nominated this article for deletion once before, on the same grounds. It was kept because improvements were promised. Improvement did not happen, and, if promised here, should be taken with an 8 month grain of salt. There is, additionally, a further level of care with respect of biographies of totally-NN people who have had passing mentions for winning jam contests now than there was in February, regardless of their desire for a self-aggrandizing "biography." Hipocrite (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless I am misreading the initial comment in the first attempt at deletion, it was started by Hipocrite. The record is the record. If I am mistaken on this, my sincere apology. DoDaCanaDa (talk)

• Weak keep, as with my vote in the last nomination. There's coverage here from a variety of reliable sources. If the subject wanted deletion, I'd delete, but here the subject clearly doesn't. Steve Smith (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The opinion of the subject here is moot; there is a sizable number of reliable sources. Many of them are 30 years old, and appear to be print-only, but they still exist. The article itself has improved some since the last time it has been nominated, but overall it has been a terrible WP:COI-magnet for its own subject, and still suffers from a lack of outside attention from people who are uninvolved with the subject. That, however, is a cleanup issue, there is nothing with the tone of the article that cannot be cleaned up. The sources exist, so the subject is likely notable. In the interest of full disclosure, I was invited here by DoDaCanaDa. --Jayron32 16:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When you say "invited," what you mean is "canvassed against policy due to your prior keep vote," correct? Should your !vote be disregarded, in your opinion, or are you going to warn Mr. Cormier to stop violating WP:CANVASS (again) and neutral messages out to a diverse pool of editors who may be interested in this AFD? Hipocrite (talk) 16:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • On which: I have posted here to the COI noticeboard about rampant canvassing and ceaseless COI. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• will someone please explain to me the difference for contacting those editors who previously took an interest in this article and this official tag bot sent to another editor here User_talk:J_Milburn#AfD_nomination_of_Ray_Joseph_Cormier When the Afd tag appeared yesterday, according to Wikipedia traffic statistics, 53 Wikipedians looked at the article,up from only 1 or 2 viewers a day, and only Nomoskedasticity left a comment. All I asked from those Editors I contacted in a permissible ¨friendly notice¨ was to ¨take a look¨ In the interest of balance, and not to be in violation of canvassing, I will inform the same number of editors who registered a delete in the previous Afd. I assure everyone this will be my last comment on this Adf until a consensus is reached.DoDaCanaDa (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I will not register an opinion here, as I informed DoDaCanaDa on my talk page, due to possible canvassing. --Danger (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lots of news stories about him from back in the day. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are you the same as notified here? --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. There *is* coverage but it's very minor coverage over a long period and doesn't add up to an awful lot. You could construct an article for anyone on that basis - hell, I could have an article on that basis. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am going by these policies for my iVote to delete They are WP:N though as stated below notability has to be shown in reliable sources as a news article not in human interest stories, WP:ANYBIO, WP:VANITY & also if neede WP:IAR. To me this article is not notable nor does it meet policies/guidelines. I am i'Voting also per comments made by Cameron Scott, User:Atama, User:Johnuniq The main users that had the most to offer me during this is User:DoDaCanaDa and User:Steve Smith Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - The number of references to reliable sources almost caused me to make a kneejerk "keep" argument. Normally I would say that they would clinch this as an establishment of notability. But I looked into the long discussion on the talk page, and the last two AfDs. Particularly compelling was something that KillerChihuahua said in the first deletion discussion:

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.

-- Atama頭 21:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- I think Cormier fails WP:BIO. My reaction is the same as Atama's: the article itself -- the text, the claims made -- demonstrate lack of notability rather than the reverse. I'd go even further -- I think the text itself shows that it is preposterous to have an article on him, to the point that it is a discredit to Wikipedia. Even if we need to invoke IAR on this one, I think it should be deleted. And if it isn't already apparent: the only (weak) keep vote here that is coming from someone who wasn't canvassed is Steve Smith's. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I was canvased but have the page watched so would have found it anyways. In any case, last time the sources were more than enough, and they haven't gotten worse over time. Meets WP:N by a fair margin. Hobit (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turns out I'd taken it off my watchlist. Got a bit annoyed with the whole process I guess. Didn't realize. Put it back on. In any case, there are plenty of sources, many solely about him. That he has been covered by reliable sources about things people here think aren't notable doesn't matter. He meets the letter and spirit of WP:N. I'd like those arguing for deletion to cite a policy or guideline here, or state they are !voting based on IAR (which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, just not counted very heavily). Hobit (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've already mentioned IAR, but I'd like to emphasize that I genuinely think he fails WP:BIO: I do not think that he is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". The issue of sources is a common way of arriving at a conclusion as to whether someone is notable, but since notability is defined at the outset without reference to sources, I think it is possible for a subject to appear in sources and yet fail to be notable in the way the guideline defines the word. So I don't intend that my vote is to be taken solely on the basis of IAR. And I would be very grateful if other editors voting keep can consider this way of making judgments on sources and notability here: the "spirit" of notability is defined, and the existence of sources does not tell us everything we need to know. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • He both got plenty of attention and was obviously recorded by reliable sources. As I read that it's not if you or I think he deserved that attention and recording, it's that RSes felt that way. Otherwise, I'd !vote to delete everything we have that's related to soap operas. They are (in my opinion) not worthy of any attention (let alone existence, TV time, or advertising revenue). But there are plenty of sources, so we have articles and I don't try to delete them... Hobit (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there are articles with non-trivial coverage about this topic in the Edmonton Journal, Ottawa Citizen, Vancouver Sun, Kansas City Times and the Halifax Daily News. Meets WP:N by a mile. Hobit (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there's sufficient coverage from multiple reliable sources — and major sources, too; one newspaper in the capital of Canada, four newspapers in Canadian provincial and territorial capitals, and several more in major non-capital Canadian and US cities. It appears that our reliable sources think that he is "significant, interesting..." enough to cover him repeatedly, and how are we going to define notability if sustained coverage by multiple reliable sources isn't it? Nyttend (talk) 04:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, essentially per Nomoskedasticity. Ironholds (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Atama and Nomoskedasticity. Frmatt (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes the the general notability guideline with lots of media coverage. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Subject is an activist, prophet, Christian, wears a football jersey, has failed to win an election, left the church and got a job, had visions of the end of the world, hitchhiker, arrested for sleeping in a park and later for disrupting the peace. Subject completely misses WP:POLITICIAN and WP:ANYBIO (no awards, no widely recognized contributions). Fails WP:CREATIVE (not an author), and fails WP:N/CA (not a notable criminal). The only way to save this article is to show that the subject meets the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". However, the subject does not satisfy that criterion because being mentioned in human-interest stories is not an indication of notability. Johnuniq (talk) 09:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you explain how human-interest stories don't meet the bar of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article"? One could argue (and I would actually) that sports stories or entertainment stories, or all sorts of "not really news" stories are as valid (or invalid) as human interest stories. Hobit (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The world is full of interesting people. Wikipedia only has articles for those who are notable in an encyclopedic sense (not necessarily those popular in tabloid local papers that fill space with human interest stories). The article is keepable only if someone can locate an analysis in a secondary source that is focused on the subject (for example, an analysis on the effects of the activism, or a comparison of notable activists). Johnuniq (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we generally treat newspapers as secondary sources to the topics they cover. Asking for analysis is, as far as I know, a much higher bar than WP:N. Hobit (talk) 04:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Although the sources are from papers in major cities, the stories themselves are only local stories. For example, there are no non-Kansas City sources about his Kansas City activities. There are no Toronto sources about his Ottawa activities. I'm not sure that qualifies him as notable. Kingturtle (talk) 15:51, 5 November 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.