Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keating Five

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 per WP:SNOW; this is no reflection of my own !vote but rather a reflection of the clear consensus placed by other users. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keating Five[edit]

We don't need articles for EVERY scandal that happens. --Jmccain (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC) — Jmccain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was a notable scandal. --Eastmain (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep This was a national scandal that made headlines for weeks. This article is lacking citations, but I'm sure they could be found. And, judging by the noms username, there may be COI concerns about this nomination. Beeblbrox (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep - Extremely notable. Torc2 (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while I strongly doubt that User:Jmccain is John McCain, this nom is still a head-scratcher given the scandal's great importance. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very much a notable scandal per everyone else; the nominator may or may not be the actual John McCain, but either way, this nomination reeks of WP:POINT. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Will source when I have time, but if someone wants to get a head start, look at this, this, and this. Kakofonous (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was a historically significant scandal. I am puzzled as to why anyone would want it removed.--Sjrr124 (talk) 03:20, 5 February 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.