Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shawn Lonsdale
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Synergy 11:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Shawn Lonsdale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Questions were raised on this article's talk page about its notability quite shortly after I had recreated this article after someone else had created a prior version that wasn't really appropriate or NPOV. This was later redirected by Doc glasgow (talk · contribs) to the article Scientology and Me (without objection from me) - but the redirect was undone about a month later by another user. This AfD is meant to assess notability in a discussion with the community that may not have previously been aware of all this stuff. I won't weigh in, but would rather appreciate comments about it from others. Thank you for your time. Cirt (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article has plenty of references. --Eastmain (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, not sure what more could be needed. WillOakland (talk) 07:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. There is no reason to waste the community's time and efforts with this. Clearly a case of WP:SNOWBALL. __meco (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would prefer that the discussion run its course per normal processes, however of course I will defer to the closing admin's judgment. It should be noted that, only a few months ago, notability concerns were raised by users at the article's talk page [1], [2] and history [3]. At the very least, I do not think that this AfD is a waste of the community's time, because of the notability concerns previously raised by others (when the article was in about the same state as it is now). Cirt (talk) 12:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are citing three edits by one user on the same day 5 months ago, a disgruntled user who has left and dissociated him/herself from the project (shortly thereafter). I'm more befuddled about your rationale for nominating this article now than after I wrote my initial response. All the more so since you are its creator. __meco (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To put it as simply as I can - to assess the community's take on the notability of the article. Cirt (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are citing three edits by one user on the same day 5 months ago, a disgruntled user who has left and dissociated him/herself from the project (shortly thereafter). I'm more befuddled about your rationale for nominating this article now than after I wrote my initial response. All the more so since you are its creator. __meco (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would prefer that the discussion run its course per normal processes, however of course I will defer to the closing admin's judgment. It should be noted that, only a few months ago, notability concerns were raised by users at the article's talk page [1], [2] and history [3]. At the very least, I do not think that this AfD is a waste of the community's time, because of the notability concerns previously raised by others (when the article was in about the same state as it is now). Cirt (talk) 12:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable, properly referenced. Don't understand why this article was even nominated.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep I don't see any problems with the article or any reason that someone could see a problem with it. There are more than enough good references and it treats the subject objectively, even with a criticism section that isn't too large. Themfromspace (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep There's nothing wrong with this article, apart from the person who wanted to censor the information it contained. There's nothing wrong with it's tone, applicability, references, verifiability, or content. Absolutely we should keep this article, there's nothing wrong with it. J O R D A N [talk ] 13:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the references provided are sufficient to establish notability. Given that he'd featured in the news more than once, this isn't even a case of an individual being notable for one event. Terraxos (talk) 00:43, 6 August 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.