View text source at Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Lowell

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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Lowell

[edit]

I consider for deletion the article, considering the number of biased, unreferenced statements contained within the article, rendering the content unverifiable. The person is also not notable enough to have a place on wikipedia. A "politically" associated person, who got a few votes in a general election in a country of 400,000 persons. Notability is disputed. Maltesedog 17:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. "Colonization of Mars" -- need I say more? └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 17:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I lean toward deletion, but I'd like a bit more outside evaluation (perhaps from European editors); Maltesedog obviously has a dog in this fight. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, I agree jpgordon, that's why i posted it for afd. I want a discussion amongst people outside my country to ensure neutrality. There is also a dispute regarding reversal of edits in the article. Well, without them or with them, the article's content is still disputable. Maltesedog 17:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-known fascist leader in Malta. Biased or unreferenced statements can be removed, but there should be enough verifiable information left. Margana 18:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Which is the verifiable information left Maltesedog 18:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a barrani I hear about him a bit even outside of Wikipedia.. There have been mentions in various papers. I have personally made use of this article (knowing that it attracts random unverifiable edits) in helping get a basic understanding of a person I considered notable prior to WikiPedia editing. As to verifiability, let's look at it.. The first paragraph seems fairly verifiable, the accusations link to news articles. Political Vision I suppose could be compared with the official website. As to quotes and trivia, I don't know how those could be verified. I do realize this is a controversial person, however I think Wikipedia would be doing the world a disservice to simply delete an article about what is in my opinion a Notable person. Just my Lm 0.02.. 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 21:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Refs in article establish notability. Being a complete lunatic does not disqualify a subject from having an article in Wikipedia. JChap 00:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cautious Keep Would not be a notable person in a larger country, but for Malta, this does seems to be a notable local right-wing nut politician. The article needs a lot of cleanup though for verification. Statements such as "He is the founder of Ch'uan Shu in Malta" need checking. Weird links such as the see also link to colonization of Mars need to be justified or deleted. Bwithh 00:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article meets WP:V. Article doesn't violate WP:NPOV. Article is decently (though imperfectly) formatted. Article is not a hoax or spam. Article stays. (By the way, just because you don't like the subject doesn't mean it should be deleted). Captainktainer * Talk 00:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine, notability can be disputed. But still I believe, the content of the article is unverifiable. Not even his birth date is known with certainty. (Why invent it in the first instance?) Maltesedog 06:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Most of the article is fairly decently sourced, when including the external links at the bottom. There are a few citation-needed elements, but the solution is to rectify those problems, not throw out the otherwise well-referenced remainder of the article. The appropriate thing to do is to continue working on the article, not to bring it up for AfD. I can understand debating it on notability grounds, but he meets WP:BIO just fine. Captainktainer * Talk 06:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for obvious reasons Seriously, this guy is famous, he's always in the news, in the papers etc. For Christ's sake, you're doubting the notability? You must be kidding. There are wikipedia pages on ANR and their spokespersons, you wanna delete those also? There are also article on the Emmy Bezzina and Joe Zammit "party" for Christ's sake! (I didn't even know it existed!) The article on Norman Lowell is very well written and has loads of sources (yes, now I included one to verify his birth date also, happy? It was never invented in the first place). I also can't see exactly how the article is biased.Drew88 09:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Whooaaa... take a breather. Let's all be civil and assume good faith of one another; we're building an encyclopedia together, let's remember that. Anyway, a couple things: 1) If we were to assume that this was a bad article, the fact that there are other bad articles isn't a reason to keep it around. 2) I tried visiting the link you helpfully included after the guy's birthdate, but it seems to require that the user log in. Is there another source available? I'd like to confirm the date, but for various reasons I'd like to not sign up on the forum, if possible. 3) I don't see how the article is biased, either, and I think there's a good claim for notability, but there are some statements that haven't been verified yet. By the way, a heads-up: I think I'm going to delete the Alternet link, given that Alternet isn't really a reliable source; the other sources should more than carry the weight. Captainktainer * Talk 10:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Sorry about that. 1) I just wanted to point out that there are loads of Malta-related articles of very little interest, arguable notability etc, yet nobody seems to nominate them for deletion. Why? Oh yeah, because nobody cares that they're there. Yet, everybody cares about the Norman Lowell page. Why? Because most Maltese people give more importance to him than the President? 2) Yes, sorry about that, but it's the only source I know of. There shouldn't be a fuss surrounding this issue though, why would I make up his age? Who cares anyway? 3) Virtually everything in the article is verified I believe.Drew88 11:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment 1) I would agree that a lot of it has to do with his presence on the fringe. A lot of people don't like him - myself included - and sometimes we allow our biases to creep in. As for 2), I don't know why you would make up his age, but one of the five pillars of Wikipedia is verifiability. It's one of the most important elements of Wikipedia, and while many people can argue over whether something is a reliable source or not (I'm embroiled in one such dispute elsewhere), there needs to be at least an attempt to edit according to that principle. Also, Wikipedia has received legal threats from people upset over inaccuracies in their birthdate and other vital stats, as well as media ridicule, so it's one of the things that people try to watch over like a hawk. As for 3), the trivia section isn't well-sourced, particularly the bit about Dionysian Action Painting, and the assertion that he was banned from television specifically following the racist remarks isn't sourced right. But these are problems to fix, not matters to delete an article over. Captainktainer * Talk 12:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Your reference on his age says You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. Perhaps it should be quoted in a footnote with a link that says 'accessed from [1] on such a date, (registration required)' ? 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 16:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Hey Captain, thanks for your understanding. Anyway, regarding the "Dionysian Action Painting" and "Ch'uan Shu", they are facts mentioned on the Imperium Europa website. Now, he might be lying...heh..Drew88 08:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I now tend to agree with your reasoning captain. Its a healthy discussion going on. Maltesedog 14:16, 9 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.