Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Scott Richardson (2nd nomination)
- 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 keep as meeting WP:N. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- James Scott Richardson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Not a notable character, page created to "expose" individual (Falls under A7 and G10) Imstillhere 15:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article solely exists to disparage the individual. The individual noted in this article was a member of a racist group and was sued for making anti-muslim and anti-jewish comments right close to september 11th (3 days after the event). This in no way makes him notable. There is no reason why he is on wikipedia other than the attempts by certain individuals to "expose" racists. This is contrary to the purpose of wikipedia. There is no evidence that the individual tried to "kill the prime minister" other than the TITLE of a sensationalist news article. Never charged or brought to trial for "attempting to kill the prime minister". Imstillhere 16:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This nomination was done incorrectly, so I fixed it. --W.marsh 16:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Imstillhere 16:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An example of what is going on with this article can be seen at AnnieHall's talk page. The removals of the "Melissa Guille" and "Canadian Heritage Alliance" articles were discussed. The article was then taken and posted on a website called NaziWatchCanada [1] including the inflaming remarks and unsourced information that the article was deleted for in the first place.
- Strong Keep Notable bigots are notable. He's notable in several senses --as being ( I think) as extreme a bigot as Canada has to offer,and as receiving major media coverage. Once someone has received external notice and reportage on their acts, then they are notable. And once N, he remains N, a permanent bad example. I see no POV or BLP problems. He was convicted of the crimes, and sought publicity for his statements. We don't expose racists, we record the N ones, just like all other newsmakers. Thats part of Not Censored. We don't try make bad things go away. DGG 04:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This proves my point. He has no criminal record. Never convicted of a crime. Charges against him based on the 'September 11' threats were dropped without a day in court. [2]. So the article IS in fact serving nothing more than to disparage the subject.Imstillhere 13:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- SOURCE: London Free Press - Lawyer Feared For his safety - Aug. 31, 2004
"In a high-profile case that garnered praise from anti-racist advocates, London police charged Richardson and Kulbashian with uttering death threats and counselling to commit murder. But the charges were dropped last year by assistant Crown attorney Peter Kierluk."
- Strong keep A prominent figure in the Canadian far-right, and notable accordingly. CJCurrie 02:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Last i heard, he hasn't been involved in ANYTHING for over 3 years. Imstillhere 02:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In which case, he's a prominent figure in the Canadian far-right from the early 2000s, and notable accordingly. CJCurrie 03:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Last i heard, he hasn't been involved in ANYTHING for over 3 years. Imstillhere 02:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DGG and CJCurrie. semper fictilis 05:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Regardless of the "votes" the article clearly falls under A7 and G10. 74.102.214.189 06:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Anonymous votes generally don't count toward the result. CJCurrie 00:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, there are no votes to count one way or another. Remember, this is a discussion and not a vote. Anonymous editors may participate in the AfD debates and when their arguments are made based on policy and guidelines, their opinions most certainly do count toward the restult. Arkyan • (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Anonymous votes generally don't count toward the result. CJCurrie 00:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep per DGG Thewinchester (talk) 05:57, 10 April 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.