Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L. Craig Schoonmaker (3rd nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. "NN" doesn't convince me of anything, but the verifiability concerns do. Mangojuicetalk 15:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L. Craig Schoonmaker

Nonnotable person, as is

gay pride. This doesn't make the guy notable. Oh Crap 18:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment For having an innappropriate user name! This seems like a disingenuous comment to me ment to somehow affect this AfD with unrelated material.--Nick Y. 22:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the time that I posted this comment, there was no indication why Oh Crap had been suspended indefinitely. See [1]. If I had known it was only for the inappropriate user name, I would not have posted the comment. Ground Zero | t 03:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The leader of a one-man party? --Richhoncho 18:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Michael 18:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are links to the first two AfDs, both of which failed to get consensus for deletion:

  1. First nomination - February 10, 2006
  2. Second nomination - June 26, 2006
  • Strong keep. Here is an article about a colorful figure in US politics, whose activities have been as diverse as they are bizarre. This the sort of article that makes Wikipedia a joy to read. Would Wikipedia be improved by deleting this article? No. Would it be diminished? I think so. Schoonmaker filed to run for President of the US in 2005, and announced in March 2006 that he is running for mayor of Newark, New Jersey. This doesn't make him famous, or important, but given his colorful background, it makes him an amusing addition to the wonderful world of Wikipedia. What value is there having a third AfD just a couple of weeks after the second? If you have nothing to do, you could try creating some articles, or adding content, instead of wasting time trying yet again to delete an interesting article. Ground Zero | t 18:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete NN, only good claim of notability is unverifiable--Nick Y. 19:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, oh come on! The article was on AfD only a couple of weeks ago. bbx 19:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - "There's no harm" is not a valid arguement. He (unverifyably) claims to have invented a well used term, and other than that, is a random attempted politician. Tha last AfD ended in no consensus, so relisting it isn't a bad thing. --PresN 20:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But this is the third time. It is too bad that some much energy is put into trying to remove content and defend articles. This diverts attention away from trying to create content. Ground Zero | t 03:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Coining "Gay Pride" appears to be his only claim to fame - not enough to be encyclopedically notable beyond a mention and an external link to his claims in the Gay Pride article. The other stuff is just crazy crank one man party politics. I'm sure most crank political parties have pretty interesting manifestos - it doesnt automatically make them encyclopedic enough for their own article though. (yeah, yeah, its a copy and paste job...) Bwithh 22:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. The last AfD's lack of consensus seemed to hinge on whether deletion based on notability was consistent with WP's deletion policy. Personally, I'm not opposed to using notability in such a way, as I see it as an extension of
    WP:BIO--even his major contribution, if he made it, isn't "widely recognized" and in fact isn't yet verifiable. -- H·G (words/works) 23:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong keep. Schoonmaker is notable as the originator of the phrase "gay pride". His spelling reform and political activities may not be sufficiently notable on their own, but they are unquestionably of interest and deserve to be included in the article. CJCurrie 01:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the "gay pride" claim ever gets some evidence to back it up, very very very very weak keep --- GWO
  • Delete Unverifiable BigE1977 19:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable and no proof to the claims doktorb wordsdeeds 10:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not sure about the non-verifiable claims. Capitalistroadster provided this source in the first AFD nomination: [2] (scroll down) Yamaguchi先生 09:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please gay pride claim has been verified Yuckfoo 21:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, NN. -- Dcflyer 02:51, 19 July 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/L._Craig_Schoonmaker_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1142215987"