Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John A. Caddell

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 a stock-standard no consensus result for whether Caddell is notable or not. Daniel 09:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John A. Caddell

John A. Caddell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable individual Leeannedy 22:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, just a lawyer who held some positions with the state bar. That might be good enough for a dictionary of Alabama biography, but it is not
  notable. --Dhartung | Talk 06:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep He was president of the state bar association; I do not know if this is enough--i think further notability might depend on the importance of the work he did, and I can not actually tell about his practice from the article--it just talks about the externals. But to nom as nn, and not say more, or to say "just a lawyer who held some positions with the state bar" does not take serious account of the actual article. DGG 07:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as per DGG. Bearian 16:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Callelinea 05:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, so you don't like our notability criteria, no need to
    prove a point by trying to impose your criteria on debates where we use the actual criteria. This user has been spamming several debates with this BTW. Morgan Wick 07:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 16:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wafulz 15:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a prominant lawyer for sure, but not notable enough for Wikipedia listing. Irishjp 15:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, president of a state bar is not a particularly notable position; no other claim of notability. NawlinWiki 17:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weakish Delete - Tried to get think of a case for notability based on the totality of the biography but not sure I can justify. Two years as state bar president. Lots of those around. State-level party functionary. Lots of those as well Head of a small bank that was eventually acquired by a big bank. Doesn't seem to have anything that can push it over the top in my mind. Montco 21:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2 years as bar association president. In a career span of say 50 years, that makes him one of the 25 most prominent lawyers in the state. There are a lot of lawyers in alabama, so clearly much more notable than they average. DGG (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep, for the reasons given by DGG. It is a well-written and sourced article to a notable person from Alabama involved in politics and the law. Callelinea 22:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. See Decatur Daily article and Alabama Academy of Honor page — ERcheck (talk) 02:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 13:40, 8 July 2007 (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.