Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cameron Inquiry

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. MBisanz ^talk 13:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Inquiry[edit]

The article provides no relevant context as to what it is about and is full of attacks against. Danny Williams (politician). It therefore fails the NPOV policy. It shouldn't stay anyway, as politicians often argue and disagree. The accusations are not notable. Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 13:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, though not in its current state. The inquiry itself appears to be amply covered in third party sources, so I'm going to see now whether I can improve the article. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: having made the edits I described, I now think the article demonstrates its notability and should be kept. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's, please don't delete, i am not trying to attack Danny. i just saw that there is no article about the whole inquiry so i created it from whatever i found in the media history. Please help me make it into a good article.Thanks again for your help. Ntb613 (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just did a substantial rewrite with refs. Any better? Gonzonoir (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you so much. What a diffrience. I hope now no one will want to delete the article. Thanks!!!Ntb613 (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since it no longer bears any resemblence to the article I nominated and has none of the problem to a degree it can be fixed, I'm happy to withdraw the nomination. - 18:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable regional controversy that will become notable with a page on Wikipedia. §FreeRangeFrog 18:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reworked article with valid sources is much better. §FreeRangeFrog 17:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article's subject has in-depth coverage in independent sources. Sufficient for GNG. Ray (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article covers a major event in the contemporary history of Newfoundland and Labrador which has drawn the attention of most of its residents.--HJKeats (talk) 12:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has developed to show notability. shirulashem (talk) 13:23, 10 February 2009 (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.