Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Keith Carson - Knowledge

Source 📝

261:
in conjunction with it, and the fifth is a dead link that can't even be recovered via the Wayback Machine to determine whether it did or didn't say anything noteworthy about Keith Carson either. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the article from having to contain much more
252:
notable than the norm for this level of office. But this is effectively written like a résumé, says nothing about him that would credibly support treating him like a special case of greater notability than most other county councillors, and isn't properly referenced: three of the five footnotes are
240:#2. As always, people at this level of government are not automatically entitled to have Knowledge articles just because they exist -- local officeholders have to pass a much higher burden of notability than just being technically verifiable, such as by writing and properly sourcing some genuine 198: 159: 283: 303: 192: 106: 262:
substance, and much better sourcing, than this. (Note also that the existence of this article was recently raised in another current AFD discussion as a
91: 257:
that are not support for notability at all, one is a news article that tangentially verifies a stray fact without actually mentioning Keith Carson
330:
and I could find no significant coverage in independent sources that showed why this person would be an exception. - 20:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
388: 132: 127: 136: 86: 79: 17: 213: 119: 180: 100: 96: 427: 406: 40: 254: 174: 380: 170: 423: 410: 393: 358: 315: 295: 275: 61: 36: 123: 402: 220: 206: 115: 67: 375: 345: 311: 291: 271: 75: 29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
422:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
57: 351: 186: 367: 337: 327: 237: 266:
argument for why a similarly bad article about one of his colleagues had to be kept.)
371: 341: 263: 229: 307: 287: 267: 233: 153: 53: 401:
not even close to meeting the inclusion criteria for politiicians.
418:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
232:
of an officeholder at the county level of government, not
248:
to demonstrate why they should be seen as significantly
149: 145: 141: 205: 43:). No further edits should be made to this page. 430:). No further edits should be made to this page. 302:Note: This discussion has been included in the 284:list of Politicians-related deletion discussions 282:Note: This discussion has been included in the 304:list of California-related deletion discussions 219: 8: 107:Help, my article got nominated for deletion! 301: 281: 7: 24: 92:Introduction to deletion process 18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 1: 316:17:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC) 296:17:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC) 276:17:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC) 82:(AfD)? Read these primers! 447: 411:16:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC) 394:22:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC) 359:00:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC) 62:11:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC) 420:Please do not modify it. 32:Please do not modify it. 326:. Per nominator. Fails 244:about their political 80:Articles for deletion 403:John Pack Lambert 318: 298: 97:Guide to deletion 87:How to contribute 438: 391: 383: 356: 348: 234:reliably sourced 224: 223: 209: 157: 139: 77: 34: 446: 445: 441: 440: 439: 437: 436: 435: 434: 428:deletion review 387: 379: 366:per nom, fails 352: 346: 255:primary sources 166: 130: 114: 111: 74: 71: 48:The result was 41:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 444: 442: 433: 432: 414: 413: 396: 361: 331: 320: 319: 299: 227: 226: 163: 110: 109: 104: 94: 89: 72: 70: 65: 46: 45: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 443: 431: 429: 425: 421: 416: 415: 412: 408: 404: 400: 397: 395: 392: 390: 384: 382: 377: 376:SportingFlyer 373: 369: 365: 362: 360: 357: 355: 349: 343: 339: 335: 332: 329: 325: 322: 321: 317: 313: 309: 305: 300: 297: 293: 289: 285: 280: 279: 278: 277: 273: 269: 265: 260: 256: 251: 247: 243: 239: 235: 231: 222: 218: 215: 212: 208: 204: 200: 197: 194: 191: 188: 185: 182: 179: 176: 172: 169: 168:Find sources: 164: 161: 155: 151: 147: 143: 138: 134: 129: 125: 121: 117: 113: 112: 108: 105: 102: 98: 95: 93: 90: 88: 85: 84: 83: 81: 76: 69: 66: 64: 63: 59: 55: 51: 44: 42: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 419: 417: 398: 386: 378: 363: 353: 333: 323: 258: 249: 246:significance 245: 241: 228: 216: 210: 202: 195: 189: 183: 177: 167: 116:Keith Carson 73: 68:Keith Carson 49: 47: 31: 28: 236:as passing 193:free images 424:talk page 242:substance 37:talk page 426:or in a 160:View log 101:glossary 39:or in a 368:WP:NPOL 338:WP:NPOL 328:WP:NPOL 308:Bearcat 288:Bearcat 268:Bearcat 238:WP:NPOL 199:WP refs 187:scholar 133:protect 128:history 78:New to 399:Delete 372:WP:GNG 364:Delete 342:WP:GNG 336:Fails 334:Delete 324:Delete 264:WP:WAX 259:at all 230:WP:BLP 171:Google 137:delete 54:Daniel 50:delete 354:SPEAK 347:KidAd 214:JSTOR 175:books 154:views 146:watch 142:links 16:< 407:talk 340:and 312:talk 292:talk 272:talk 250:more 207:FENS 181:news 150:logs 124:talk 120:edit 58:talk 221:TWL 158:– ( 409:) 374:. 370:, 350:• 344:. 314:) 306:. 294:) 286:. 274:) 201:) 152:| 148:| 144:| 140:| 135:| 131:| 126:| 122:| 60:) 52:. 405:( 389:C 385:· 381:T 310:( 290:( 270:( 225:) 217:· 211:· 203:· 196:· 190:· 184:· 178:· 173:( 165:( 162:) 156:) 118:( 103:) 99:( 56:(

Index

Knowledge:Articles for deletion
talk page
deletion review
Daniel
talk
11:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Keith Carson

Articles for deletion
How to contribute
Introduction to deletion process
Guide to deletion
glossary
Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
Keith Carson
edit
talk
history
protect
delete
links
watch
logs
views
View log
Google
books
news
scholar
free images

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.