Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Willey

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Willey

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

Article has been tagged with cleanup tags for several years with no work done on it; no citations or references or indications of noteability. The vast majority of the article is simply copy-paste from speeches. Jtrainor (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep the guy is clearly notable. he's all over google books and google scholar, and not in a trivial way. the fact that the article is in poor shape is indicated by the templates, which of course should be left. but there's no deadline. let's just leave the article tagged as a mess and wait till someone fixes it. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an editorless article in bad shape, but a search indicated that ability to establish wp:notability is near-certain. Needs editors/rescue, not deletion. North8000 (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why on earth would we want to delete this article about a clearly notable 19th century abolitionist leader and newspaper editor? Nominator, please read WP:BEFORE and consider following its wise precepts in the future. A Google Books search verifies his notability in a matter of seconds. Why be concerned about the fact that "the vast majority of the article is simply copy-paste from speeches" when these are 19th century speeches and therefore in the public domain? By no means do I claim that this is even a halfway decent article, but the solution to a poor quality article about a notable topic is to improve the article through the normal editing process rather than deleting the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looking at sources, he is a notable figure in history. Joe Chill (talk) 22:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lousy, lousy article about a subject appearing more than sufficiently notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:04, 1 September 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.