Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Harlan

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 Speedy keep. No rationale was submitted for deletion, and all the responses stating an opinion have been in favor of keeping the article. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Harlan[edit]

Megapen (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was just created, and you want to delete it already? Let's give the creator a chance to expand it first. ArcAngel (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: a) No reason for deletion has been given. b) Nominating for deletion 2 minutes after article was created, with the editor still working on it (as shown by an additional edit), is too bleeping quick on the trigger. If you've notability concerns, tag it, step back, let the editors do the work, and if you still have concerns later, THEN suggest it be deleted -- per official policy. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close because it's so new. It's referenced at least, though notability could be a concern. However, more time could mean more references demonstrating notability. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1) No rationale for nomination given; 2) tagged within two minutes of creation, that is way, way too soon; 3) has at least two reliable sources, Fort Worth Star-Telegram and Sarasota Herald-Tribune, which are adequate for a stub to be expanded later, 4) plenty of google hits for this guy[1][2] suggests notability and more sources. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pile on keep. Article is shaping up nicely, and is showing notability. Suggest withdrawing the nom.--Fabrictramp (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per JeremyMcCracken. Gimghoul28 (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep everything appears to check out and look okay, so I don't think notability is a concern regardless of how soon this was nominated after initial article creation. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is unfortunate that the article was nominated for AfD so quickly after being created and perhaps one could use the absence of the stated rationale by the nominator as a reason for keep or speedy keep. I will say, however, for future discussion(s), that notability of the subject will need to be established, probably more likely per WP:MUSIC than per WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 21:36, 6 May 2008 (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.