Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Warren (convict)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 of the debate was no consensus. Ichiro 05:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Warren (convict)

edit

Nothing in this article alleges notability. I speedy deleted it, the original editor objected, so I'm bringing it here. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for failure to establish notability wrt WP:BIO. Eddie.willers 21:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. -R. fiend 22:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Durova 22:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable. I see that Snottygobble (talk · contribs) has posted a whole string of similar articles from the same Rica Erickson sources. Being a transported convict is not in itself notable. The standard figure is 160,000 transportees to Australia; we can't have articles on them all. The test is Wikipedia:Notability (people): Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field? Tearlach 11:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not established. TigerShark 23:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's been fifty years since historians first began to regret the fact that their histories were all histories of the rich and powerful elite. Since then historians worldwide have begun the process of redressing this imbalance. If Wikipedia starts refusing to host historical biographical articles that reference reputable sources, then Wikipedia shows itself to be stuck in the 1950s. It cites a reputable academic source, people! How can it be non-notable? Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 06:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Drew. Ambi 06:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Verifiability != notability. While I'm sure it's regretful that we don't have much information on the lives of common people in the past, one's existence and/or the ability to prove that does not qualify one for inclusion in an encyclopedia. I think I've suggested a wiki for people before, a long long time ago, and this is an excellent example of what would be a perfectly decent article there. But an encyclopedia? Sorry, folks. Johnleemk | Talk 06:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the article should be kept now. Ambi's point that "Some guy wrote about him a hundred years later, so he's worth writing about!" isn't really convincing. What is convincing is the article's new assertion of notability. After all, there has to be a reason why the biographer wrote about him, and that reason is usually proof of notability. The article now explains all, so I'm willing to change my tune on this. Johnleemk | Talk 11:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Johnleemk. enochlau (talk) 06:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, subject of biographical research. Kappa 06:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. As far as I know, most non-notable entries are promotion, vanity, stalking or the like. This wikipedia entry wouldn't be guilty of this, nor would the person who created the primary source. So that makes more than one person who in good faith considers the subject notable. Andjam 07:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andjam and Drew. Sarah Ewart 07:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep John et al., there is a wiki for people; a couple in fact (however neither is officially associated with MediaWiki or Wikipedia, but maybe one should be). Check the {{badbio}} template. I agree that such a place, and not Wikipedia, is better for the average vanity bio, but Andjam has a point. The individual obviously didn't write it himself.--Wotwu 07:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Drew. Bduke 07:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. --Carnildo 08:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems nn.  Grue  08:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Possibly to the detriment of the article, I have added an assertion of the subject's notability to the article. Can prior voters on notability grounds please re-consider in the light of the changes and, if you won't change your vote, re-sign your comments with a fresh timestamp. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 08:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Andjam and Snottygobble -- Adz|talk 09:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Andjam, Snottygobble, Adz; verifiable - Wikipedia's policy is verifiabilty--A Y Arktos 11:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But don't forget Wikipedia:Notability (people), which states a simple test: "Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field?" Clearly, the answer is no. enochlau (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree. The fact that, more than a hundred years after his death, someone completely unrelated felt that his contribution was important enough to research enough to write about in a book would suggest to me that yes, there has been a recognised contribution to the historical record. It's silliness like this article being put up for AfD that makes me see where the "notability should not be a reason for deletion" folks are coming from. Ambi 11:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • that his contribution was important enough to research enough to write about in a book. Looks like historical politics to me. [1]: "The publishing of the book coincided with people viewing their convict ancestors not with shame for their crimes but with pride for their achievements". Dull biographies - but hey, it's Heritage. Tearlach 12:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The biography notability criteria are less strict for deceased people: "Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field?" He was one of only a small number of convicts (out of tens of thousands) to achieve a respectable position in society. Discussed in a book on the topic, that's notable enough for me. --bainer (talk) 11:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The subject of this vote (i.e. an article about the individual John Warren) seems to be getting confused with the subject of "ex-convicts becoming schoolteachers in Australia". The latter may well be notable enough for an article, and it is this subject that the quoted source relates to. Nobody has written a book on John Warren, rather he appears in a book on the subject of ex-convict schoolteachers. Creating an article for each person mentioned in a book on a notable subject seems to be stretching the notabilty test. With regard to the notability test of "Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field?", in what way is John Warren's contribution widely recognized (as opposed to the contribution made by the ex-convict schoolteachers as a whole)? TigerShark 12:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (The above correction from "was" to "field" is mine. I believe this is what you meant?)
  • Why can't I say that John Warren made a widely recognised contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field of "ex-convict school-teachers of Western Australia"? On what grounds do you discount "ex-convict school-teachers of Western Australia" as a valid field in which a person might make a widely recognised contribution that is part of the enduring historical record? Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 12:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can say whatever you like. I am asking why he should be considered to have made a widely recognised contribution (i.e. justify it, don't just state it). Also, I am not disputing the validity of the field. Thanks TigerShark 15:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think TigerShark is disputing the validity of the field, just Warren's notability within it. Until he got a bit part in a 1983 book, he seems to have been completely unremembered, in any field. How can that be construed as "widely recognised"? See James Ruse below. Tearlach 13:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, so the field is valid. And anybody wishing to do research in the field "ex-convict school-teachers of Western Australia" would have only 39 individuals to study, and so are hardly likely to dismiss any particular individual as not making a significant contribution to the field. I assert that 100% of people that ever have or ever will do research in the field of "ex-convict school-teachers of Western Australia" will recognise Warren as having made a significant contribution to that field. To the extent that "widely" can be used accurately in what is obviously a narrow field, I should say that 100% is wide enough. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 22:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is sheer sophistry, again based on cherry-picking an obscure non-notable subset of a notable group, then claiming notability for being in that subset. The Brand on His Coat [2] is about "some of the 9,500 convicts transported to Western Australia between 1850 and 1868" so you're selecting a time-slot, a region and a profession, then claiming notabiity for being one of the few in that selection. This is an utter swindle, helped along by soliciting views in the Australian Wikipedians' notice board where there's bound to be a bias toward inclusion. Tearlach 23:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent "sheer sophistry" is bound to accur when you're forced to justify the existence of an article against a criterion that you think is rubbish. I have had that blessed sentence quoted at me numerous times on this page; since it is apparently the be-all and end-all of notability, I have no option but to work within its constraints. If you don't think the "specific field" is appropriate, then I'd like to see you provide a definition of "specific field" that doesn't result in a circular definition of notability.
Meanwhile, Rica Erickson thinks that ex-convict schoolteachers in Western Australia is a sufficiently notable group to write a book chapter about them. You dispute this. On what grounds do you claim to be a better judge of the notability of a Western Australian group than the State's most respected social historian?
As for your suggestion that I solicited biased views, I think you're getting dangerously close to assuming bad faith here. In my view, the people who hang around AFD tend to be more likely to have a deletionist outlook. My stated intention was to get input from a wider range of people than the usual AFD crowd. Since the article is Australian, that is a reasonable forum in which to do so. I was very careful to state that I was looking for debate rather than support. What exactly is your objection to that? Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 23:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds do you claim to be a better judge of the notability of a Western Australian group than the State's most respected social historian? Ignoring the appeal to authority (a card you've already played when you objected to Zoe's speedy deletion [3]) "the State's most respected social historian" was working by whatever selection criteria she had for writing the book, which doesn't necessarily match Wikipedia's collective notability standards. As for your suggestion that I solicited biased views, I think you're getting dangerously close to assuming bad faith here. All I'll suggest is that you don't seem keen on abiding by the usual procedures for assessing notability and keeping/deletion. Using admin powers to restore your own article from speedy deletion doesn't go down well here. Nor does running to Jimbo Wales because you don't like an AfD. Tearlach 00:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wholly agree with the views of Tearlach and and TigerShark - he just doesn't stack up to other historical figures we have here, and his only claim to fame is as a member of a group of people. enochlau (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to The Brand on His Coat (book), and expand the article to discuss the published work. If the book already had an article, we'd be clamoring for its merge and redir, no? JDoorjam 20:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very reasoned and reasonable suggestion. My opinion is that this is the best option. The man might not be notable, but the book is. Move. Thanks, Jdoorjam. --LV (Dark Mark) 22:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds like a good idea to me, I would vote Merge in that situation (or if an article was created covering ex-convicts becoming teachers in Australia). TigerShark 22:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Move per above --Jaranda wat's sup 22:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely not. Should we then move Daniel Connor to The Brand on His Coat too, or does Connor's money and political standing exempt him? And maybe we should move William Sykes (convict) to Unwilling Emigrants too, right? And then I could create an article on the book Biographical Register of Members of Parliament of Western Australia and merge all 75 current articles on W.A. Members of Parliament into that. I don't think you have thought this through at all. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 22:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also very strongly object to said merge. Merging historical figures into books makes no sense whatsoever. Ambi 23:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree, except there is some question about whether this guy is a "historical figure". --LV (Dark Mark) 23:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I absolutely agree. Merging historical figures into books makes no sense. However, this article is about an individual whose only proof of notability seems to be that he is mentioned in this book. Daniel Connor, if mentioned in The Brand On His Coat, should absolutely be mentioned in the article about the book, though if he's notable enough to have his own article, he should have it. As for the Biographical Register of Members of Parliament of Western Australia, I'd say, knock yourself out! I'd argue only that it would conflict with the current apparent scheme of listing them nationally, and not regionally: here's one for 1998-2001, here's one for 2001-2004.... Not only are they listed here, but many (if not all) of those members also have their own page. This is far more like redirecting, say, Philip Pirrip to Great Expectations: we wouldn't have anything to say about Pip or John Warren if it weren't for the respective books they're in. I must say I also agree with Tearlach's assessment of this being cherrypicking by calling him notable among the ex-convictts during a certain time period who became Australian schoolteachers, and with TigerShark's point that the book that is being used to show Warren's notability isn't even about Warren, but is simply about the group of people of which Warren was a member. On his own, without this book, he's entirely non-notable. The book still doesn't make him notable enough, but the book itself is worth discussing. JDoorjam 23:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Except Pip is faaaaar more notable than John Warren (convict). ;-) --LV (Dark Mark) 00:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Undoubtedly. But Warren is still notable enough. And he was a real person too, which is a bonus. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 00:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Okay, since this is a discussion and note a plain vote, what exactly makes John Warren notable? Surely you are not saying everyone mentioned in any book is notable, are you? So he must have done something that was of note. My question is, what? --LV (Dark Mark) 00:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'm not really a big fan of making such sweeping statements, but in general, yes, I do think that any person who is mentioned in a reputable book is notable. If that is not sufficient for you in this case, I say again that he as one of a very small number of convicts who overcame the social stigma of convictism by obtaining a respectable place in Western Australian colonial society via a job as a school teacher. As I understand it, objections to this are based on the premise that I have only made Warren appear notable by providing a non-notable field in which to assess his contribution. As I've said elsewhere, you never know what fields people will want to do research in in the future, and if there is any field in which a person should be considered notable, then the person should be considered notable for Wikipedia purposes. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 01:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as random convict. Stifle 23:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 01:33, Jan. 16, 2006
  • Delete. This article fails even my very low standards for notability (see User:Simetrical#Notability). Specifically, if he's only known to anyone because of this one book, no one will have any reason to want to know anything about him unless they've read the book, in which case they know everything that the article has to say about him anyway. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but it's quite possible that you'd also be interested in, say, me, a total nobody, if I wrote a good (and verifiable) article about myself. I think we can probably agree that an article about me doesn't belong on Wikipedia, even if people are interested in it. I don't see much of any consistent standard that would allow us to keep an article about this convict but not me, provided the latter article found some unusual and maximally nonspecific category that I fit into. Your having been on the ArbCom probably makes you more notable than this guy. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • I feel like we're losing focus here. I've harvested all the "pro" arguments made so far:
  1. "It cites a reputable academic source, people! How can it be non-notable?" (Then let's make an article about the book, eh?)
  2. This article isn't promotional or vanity. (... which is why it wasn't speedied, but that doesn't make it notable.)
  3. There aren't a lot of ex-con teachers in this particular time period. (Please please please tell me this means I get to write my JDoorjam article because there aren't a lot of quarter-German quarter-Norwegian half-Polish California-born East-Coast residents who went to school in up-state New York, and so I'm pretty sure I stand out in that field... but I digress.)

Are there any other arguments? Because these don't really compel me to say this article is keep-worthy. The delete/merge arguments, meanwhile, seem rather valid: if you zoom out even a little bit, to, say, Australians in that time period, or teachers in that time period, or ex-convicts in history, this individual doesn't really seem to stand out.

Is this how it all breaks down at this point? It seems like an obvious delete/merge, despite the passion from the Aussie Posse here. (Sorry, it rhymed. I had to.) JDoorjam 02:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Um, your bracketed comments are coming across as ridiculing the "pro" position. If you want this to lead to a productive discussion, I suggest you re-factor. Also, the statement "it seems like an obvious delete/merge" may be your opinion, but it can hardly be considered a statement of how this discussion breaks down. We currently have 17 keep votes, 10 delete votes and 4 move/merge votes. Right now the only thing that's obvious is that there is no consensus. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 02:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I apologize for taking this with some levity. With that said, are there more reasons to keep this article than those I've just listed? Again, those three don't seem very compelling. Are they compelling to you? I suppose the first one must be, as it's a quotation of a statement you made in this AfD. Clearly the second one isn't stunningly compelling either (or is that not clear? Please say so), which leaves the third one, that yes, if you apply enough variables, John Warren falls out. Are there any other arguments for inclusion? Do you concede any of the points I've made here? JDoorjam 02:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You needn't apologise for the levity. I have no objection to your comments per se. I do, however, object to them being presented as a summary of the discussion.
Your response to point one doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I concede your second point as no longer relevant. The third point is an inaccurate representation of my position so you can say what you want about it. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 02:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore my proposed summary of the "for" arguments is:
  1. Warren is notable because Rica Erickson wrote about him in a book a century after his death.
  2. Warren is notable because he was one of a very small number of convicts who overcame the social stigma of convictism by obtaining a respectable place in Western Australian colonial society via a job as a school teacher.
Feel free to summarise the arguments against, but please, I think levity is not constructive at this point. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 02:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For point 1, is it really that notable that Rica Erickson, herself red-linked, wrote a book mentioning this individual? For point 2, How many overcame the stigma to become merchants? To become day laborers? To work for city government? To do any job that requires any sort of trust? The way you paint it, you make it sound as though nearly 10,000 people tried to become schoolteachers. JDoorjam 03:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merchants? - I don't know; a few. Day laborers? - I'm not familiar with the term. City government? - Virtually none. Jobs that require any sort of trust? - In a book I recently read, Brian Peachey said around five percent; i.e. 450. "The way you paint it..." - You can't have it both ways; I was happy for the notability of the article to speak for itself, but that was apparently unsatisfactory. I've now inserted an explicit, indeed blatant, statement of notability, and you object to that too.
Okay, Samuel Périvier was written about in David McCullough's book, The Path Between the Seas, so that automatically warrants him an encyclopedia article? Just because someone is researched for part of a book does not automagically mean the subject is inherently notable. That's why we don't have entire articles about minor fictional characters.
A very small number of sailors came to the Americas with Christopher Columbus, do each of them deserve their own articles? Rarity does not equal notability.
However, the book is notable, so an article would be fine on that. --LV (Dark Mark) 03:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the first thing about Samuel Périvier, David McCullough or The Path Between the Seas. In my view, every sailor who came to the Americas with Christopher Columbus is notable. Are you through asking me hypothetical questions about my position? - these questions really aren't relevant to the discussion at hand. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 04:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So every sailor that sails with Columbus deserves his own encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not for "Genealogical entries, or phonebook entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of achievement is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line). Minor characters may be mentioned within other articles." Please, WP is not a repository of facts. We write things in context of notability. This John Warren is only notable within the context of the book and should be merged there. --LV (Dark Mark) 05:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't misquote me. What I said was every sailor who came to the Americas with Christopher Columbus is notable. Once again, my opinion on the notability of Columbus' sailors is not relevant to this discussion. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 05:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those comments look as if they were made in jest, but apart from that I think they highlight the problems made by the "keep" people. enochlau (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. How does it hurt wikipedia to have well written properly referenced articles about less-notable historical figures? If it was opening the door to vanity or self promotion aritcles I would say no, but as this person lived 100 years ago and is still remembered and written about, I think it is fine. --Martyman-(talk) 03:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep or merge. Everyking 03:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs rewording a bit but its a viable article. As someone who done quite a bit of research on British convicts in Western Australia, I know that we wouldn't know that much about the guy unless he was notable. You are lucky if you can find out anything more than their name, age, religion, crime and place of conviction. We aren't going to have a flood of these.Grant65 | Talk 04:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Some of the arguments for keeping seem to be rested on the idea that, for example, Louis Pasteur has an article but The guy who lived across the street from Louis Pasteur does not, and that is some sort of "imbalance" that needs to be "redressed". Quite untrue. If a book were written about the guy we might have something, but being mentioned in a book really is not. I can pick one of any number of biographies or history books off my shelf and find hundred of people mentioned therein, does each and every one warrant an article? It seems the main argument here is "few convicts became teachers", making him something of a rarity. Well rarity is not the equivalent of encylopedicness or notability. Few common convicts become well-respected people today. When they do they do we writes on them? This seems to be an example of using a semi-random person as an example to write about an important subject (convicts in Australia). It's the subject that's important; he's just an illustration of that. Calling him a "historical figure" is a stretch. If he is, then just about everyone who lived back then was; only no one's mentioned most of them in a book (yet). If someone put their mind top it they could get as much significant information about anyone. -R. fiend 04:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is indeed a book that mentions every one of them: the "Bond" volume of the Dictionary of Western Australians. I'm not proposing to write an article on every one. This is not the thin edge of any wedge. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 05:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep content but move to The Brand on His Coat. Clearly not notable in of himself, but equally clearly contextually notable. The later edits to the second half of the article make this explicit, in fact. - brenneman(t)(c) 04:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this John Warren the same person as the John Warren who set up Southern Australia's first brewery (1836... would have been about 10) [4]? The Publisher (1882ish) [5]? One of the first surgeons to use NO for an anesthetic (1846ish in Boston) [6]? The civil rights activist (2005... he'd look good for his age) [7]? Of all the notable John Warrens out there, what distinguishes the convict from Joe Schmo from down the road? He did nothing notable. There is still not a case for notability. It is unencyclopedic. --LV (Dark Mark) 05:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • He did nothing notable. So you'll be AFD'ing Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom on those grounds then. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 05:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, John Warren was made queen? I wasn't aware of that fact. In that case, speedy keep. I think you are not quite grasping the concept of notability. Would you care to explain to me what the policy on Wikipedia about notability is, please? --LV (Dark Mark) 05:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have stated above that you think it is necessary to "do something notable" in order to be notable. The Queen is my counter-example. Your statement that you have to "do something notable" in order to be notable is not in conformance with Wikipedia:Notability. Furthermore, notability is not a policy; it is an essay, and Wikipedia:Notability (people) is a guideline, and a highly contentious one at that. Is there anything else you would like to know about the Notability guideline? Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 05:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to an article about WA convicts I think the content is valuable, but this guy is clearly not notable on his own. It would be good if we can move all the obscure WA convict bio's (same for other states) into one place. That is also better for anyone who wants to read up /research the area because they are unlikely to be looking up his name. --Sumple 05:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to an article about WA convicts Yes we must move, as the population was small in WA at the time, he would have

more impact on the local community in reducing the stigma of convicts. User:Enlil Ninlil


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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Warren_(convict)&oldid=1146617957"