Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold A. Rogers

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. east.718 at 19:31, 11/4/2007

[edit] Harold A. Rogers

Harold A. Rogers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Founder of a redlinked group, referenced exclusively from that group. Scored well in a television poll, but you know what? I'm a bit suspicious of those "you vote" polls, because every now and then you get a bit of vote-stacking. I prefer there to be some independently verifiable source for importance. What I see in Google indicates that apart from Wikipedia pretty much the only source about this guy is his own society. Guy (Help!) 14:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. As the speedy-deleter of the entire category Category:Kin Canada. Every single one of those articles either A) Lacked in notability, B) Was a copyvio from their site, C) Completely promotional in nature, or D) Some combination of A, B and C. Unless several independent (of his organization) sources can be found, I fail to see how he's established notability, much less his organization. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You have yet to prove the accusations of promotional or copyright violations that I requested on your talk page. To speedy delete these articles as spam was completely out of bounds. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Redirect. I restored this article, because I thought it needed the benefit of AFD rather than speedy-delete. (BTW, I may be restoring a few more for the same reason.) On further examination, however, I don't think that this man is notable. There are numerous accusations on various websites that there was a lot of vote-stacking for Rogers in that vote[1][2], and even the CBC acknowledges that he "benefited from a block of supportive and diligent voters"[3]. So it doesn't seem that that one seemingly/perhaps notable achievement is notable after all. I think that his group might be notable, and he might merit a mention on that page, but he doesn't need his own article. Calliopejen1 15:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Please don't restore them for the same reason. Restore them if someone asks and has some sources, by all means, but this is a society promoting itself, whether through innocent over-enthusiasm or some other motive is not really important. I, too, read "those who benefited from a block of supportive and diligent voters" as a thinly-veiled accusation of vote stacking. Guy (Help!) 15:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• I've looked around and there appear to be at least some secondary sources that would support the articles' claims. (The Kin Canada articles generally, that is.) I restored Telemiracle (turned into a redirect to Kin Canada) and Kin Canada - I think a club with tons of branches and 8100 members is notable and certainly not speediable. I also changed my vote to redirect, because it doesn't hurt for this to redirect to Kin Canada, especially for readers who are curious coming from the most important canadian list or whatever that is -- he's the only unlinked person. Calliopejen1 03:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Founder of the largest Canadian service organisation. Honoured as an Officer of the Order of the British Empire in 1948, Officer of the Order of Canada in 1978, and the first recipient of Ontario's Lamp of Learning award in 1950. Linked to a red-linked group because User:^demon took it upon himself to declare and delete the articles as candidates for speedy deletion. This article has now been rightly placed here for consideration and Kin Canada, Kin Canada Bursaries, and Telemiracle should also go through this process. They are in no way CSD. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Anybody who's been named to the Order of Canada should have an article explaining who they are and why they're important enough to be given the highest civilian honour a Canadian can receive. Keep. Bearcat 14:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with DoubleBlue and Bearcat. All Officers of the Order of Canada are notable. Keep. --YUL89YYZ 17:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep -- Order of Canada recipients are inherently notable. There are three levels: Companion (highest), Officer, and Member; Rogers is an Officer. There are up to 15, 64 and 136 of each respectively that may be appointed by the Queen annually. A check of deletion discussions linked to the Order of Canada article shows they all passed:

• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Trudi Le Caine (Member)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Harrison (Member)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bev Koester (Officer)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marvin Kwitko (note -- it turns out Kwitko was not an O.C.; this was an unsourced assertion in the AfD)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Meakins (Officer)

Here's a link to Rogers' page on the official Honours website.

--A. B. ^(talk) 19:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sidebar comment: I did a Google News Archive search on "Kin Canada" and came up with 41 hits, but not a one that would satisfy WP:NN for that organization ... however searching on the more formal term "Association of Kinsmen" produces 120 hits, many useful, including a Canadian Encyclopedia entry. --A. B. ^(talk) 16:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Indded, it was only recently renamed from Association of Kinsmen and Kinette Clubs to Kin Canada. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. —A. B. ^(talk) 19:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

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.