Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Action Resource Centre

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, it's snowing. (NAC) --J.Mundo (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London Action Resource Centre[edit]

Not notable Paki.tv (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close: Bad faith AfD. See this edit by nominator, as well as Special:Undelete/London Anarcho Racist Centre (for those who can't see, was created by nominator), this poorly sourced and controversial edit (reverted several times), and again here, and of course, the insulting comments on my talk page, where I'm accused of being paid by the centre, and am wished a 'bad day on the killing fields' (I'm in the Navy). I'm calling a duck a duck here - having failed to label the centre 'anarcho-racist', we're obviously heading down the 'deletion' route. Excuse me for not assuming good faith, but I think that in this case, it would be unwarranted. Notable or not, that's something for a different discussion to decide, not one like this, nominated in bad faith. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The debate on the discussion page of the article calls for AfD - not me but other editors brought the idea up and the idea of 'non notability' comes from other editors on the debate page - i'm just following it through. There has been a long going edit war - with quite a few editors - some of whose only edits are on this page. 'Chase me' has assumed bad faith with me from the start, making bitchy comments about me and my 'attitude' and protected the page after deleting my edits obviously taking sides in something s/he knows nothing about because s/he hasn't read through the discusion properly. it was after that that i questioned her loyalties - its common knowledge that members of the police etc are paid to make edits on wikipedia - i asked an honest and simple question that s/he couldn't answer and didn't even have the curtosy to reply! . i wished her a bad day killing because that s an old expression meaning i hope u survive and i thought s/he would know that. since unprotecting the page, it's lost most of its content and the discussion is towards delete. thats all. Paki.tv (talk) 08:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Times article seems to contain significant coverage, and the title of the Standard's article implies that it does too (though I haven't read it since there's no online copy linked). If the nominator disagrees and has a genuine objection I suggest they provide a more detailed explanation of it than 'JNN'. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Could somebody please rescue this article? It's quite obviously notable, the two sources at the bottom show that but the article itself has nothing in it that could be called redeeming. (I know this falls under: do it yourself but if it is nominated for a speedy close I don't have the time and it is utterly awful) Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 01:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since speedy close refers to speedy keep, there's plenty of time. Olaf Davis (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Olaf Davis's rationale. In the context of this longstanding edit war going on here -- see the talk page -- there needs to be a stronger case for deletion. --Lockley (talk) 05:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Independent sources establish notabiity. No good reason to delete. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the page, keep paki.tv and harrypotter away from it long enough for someone who is not a vandal to make a decent page out of this stub. fair play to 'chase me ladies' for maintaining a stiff upper lip. i'm biased, i have also been involved in the edit war and at one point recommended deletion just because it seemed the only option left... wikiprocedure is not really working here .. i would love it if a new person were to get involved and make this page better...Mujinga (talk) 22:11, 11 January 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.