Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Core

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. Since G5 criterion no longer applies to this article (per edits by Cullen328), and as the article is fine, I am closing this discussion. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 07:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Core

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

Procedural nomination per a contested G5 deletion. Article was created by banned user OSUHEY, and every significant edit to this article was made by him, or one of his socks. I am Neutral. FASTILY_s ^(TALK) 21:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - OSUHEY is a banned and blocked plagiarizer/sockpuppet. He has also made several legal threats and even contacted me under the pseudonym Senator-emeritus Jim Finke. Marcus Qwertyus 21:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The person was notable and meets WP:POLITICIAN despite the status of the editor who created the article. Here's an obituary from the Toledo Blade that gives the basic outlines of his life, and many more references in reliable sources are readily available. There is no need to delete a brief article about a notable topic just because the original creator of the article may have misbehaved. Just edit the article to improve it and move on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is nothing wrong with the article and deleting it would do nothing to benefit the encyclopedia. The subject is clearly notable and the article passes all policies. One concern is that the original creator persistently violated copyright but I don't think there are any copyright issues with this article. Editors may revert edits made by banned users, but they are not required to do so. I should point out that OSUHEY was not banned at the time he wrote the article, merely indefinitely blocked (he was only banned as a result of this discussion in August 2011). Hut 8.5 22:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The G5 criterion no longer applies because I have substantively edited the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject is demonstrably notable and meets the relevant criteria. For my part, I've never been enthusiastic about G5, when it is applied to articles which would pass muster without notice or comment were they created by any other user. Ravenswing 15:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even in the absence of recent additions that clearly negate the G5, I think it is a very bad idea to nominate articles such as this for deletion. Wikipedia would be incomplete without biographies about subjects such as this, and there is no inappropriate content. Peacock (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2011 (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.