Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Farabee

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The result was withdrawn as a responder actually converted the title into a proper article, thus resolving the issue. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Farabee

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

"Article" which is not an article, but merely a misplaced template being misused to do something that isn't what it's for. As with

actress, which exists on Wikipedia as a redirect to actor rather than a standalone article about actresses as a separate topic -- but that redirect's target is another Wikipedia article, not a Wikidata page, and the template is used on the redirect to keep it linked with the Wikidata properties, not to render Wikidata as the destination. Redirecting readers crosswiki to Wikidata as a substitute for an actual Wikipedia article is not what this template is for. Bearcat (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for Bearcat: This article was deleted because it was created by a serial copyright violator whose articles are being presumptively deleted as we speak, some of which were of dubious notability and which you have voted to delete before because they were non-notable politicians. What do you think? ミラ P 00:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The WD entry says that he was a member of the Texas House of Representatives, see his profile here: [1] ミラ P 00:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this page were using actual words to describe him as a politician, I'd never have listed it for deletion. If you want to rewrite it to be a real article about him, be my guest and I'll withdraw this — but the fact that the person named in the page title would theoretically pass a notability guideline is not a reason why it should be kept in this form in lieu of a real article that properly stated and contexualized his notability in prose. Our job is to keep articles, the kind that use words, and diverting people to Wikidata in lieu of text is always 100 per cent inappropriate. It's not that he can never have an article on here — it's that there's no legitimate reason for him to have this in lieu of a proper article. Bearcat (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 00:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 00:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Will no one rid me of this turbulent template? Feeling a little extorted here, Bearcat. Anyway, there's an article now, if you can keep it. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Member of the Texas Legislature (https://lrl.texas.gov/mobile/memberDisplay.cfm?memberID=172). Passes
WP:NPOL.--Enos733 (talk) 05:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The original cross-redirect probably could have been speedied as opposed to using AfD (unless there's something I'm missing), but the brand new post-AfD nom article there passes
WP:NPOL. Probably could use a bit more work, but it's notable. Bearcat, probably best to withdraw this now. SportingFlyer T·C 12:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

I didn't consider it speediable at first, because this was a novel situation — but shortly after I initiated this discussion, another administrator did speedy delete and close the other discussion I alluded to above on the grounds that crosswiki redirection was close enough to cross-namespace redirection to be speediable under that criterion even though it's not already explicitly stated as such. So now that I know people will have my back if I come across any more of these, that's different — but I do tend to be reluctant to use speedy in edge cases where that might be questioned or challenged, because I've had far too many people come at me for things I've considered speediable in the past. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.