![]() | This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2008 October 18. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was Keep for now. Without even vetting the !votes it is clear consensus is mixed. The prevailing argument is that he is only notable for one event, which based on policy is a valid deletion (or in this case redirect) reason. Upon first reviewing this AfD I was tempted to redirect and protect, but after thinking it over and discussing it with other admins I concluded that it would be unwise to do at this point. He is currently in the national spotlight, many people are hearing about him for the first time and they come to Wikipedia to read (and write about him). While yes, his article violates the BLP policy, there is no deadline and exception can be made. Redirecting his article now would only cause needless drama, from both experienced editors who think he should have an article and new editors who can't understand why we don't have an article on such a "notable" subject. This close is not indicative of a consensus to keep, but an interim decision that I feel will result in the least drama. In a few days or weeks after the spotlight has moved to another political talking point, this should be revisited with a new AfD. I realize this means that Wikipedia will be a news site for a short period of time but I don't see any real harm in that. BJ Talk 01:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Does not meet WP:BIO standards per one event notability. Wikipedia is not the news. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
A large portion of the debate dealt with Joe and his concerns. McCain referenced him probably over 2 dozen times. (correction by Chergles: 11 times, Obama referenced him 2 times)
The election and last night's debate hinged on him. Probably millions believe his original story. Dogru144 ( talk) 16:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.191.190 ( talk) 19:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
on the move|talk]] • contribs)
![]() | This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2008 October 18. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was Keep for now. Without even vetting the !votes it is clear consensus is mixed. The prevailing argument is that he is only notable for one event, which based on policy is a valid deletion (or in this case redirect) reason. Upon first reviewing this AfD I was tempted to redirect and protect, but after thinking it over and discussing it with other admins I concluded that it would be unwise to do at this point. He is currently in the national spotlight, many people are hearing about him for the first time and they come to Wikipedia to read (and write about him). While yes, his article violates the BLP policy, there is no deadline and exception can be made. Redirecting his article now would only cause needless drama, from both experienced editors who think he should have an article and new editors who can't understand why we don't have an article on such a "notable" subject. This close is not indicative of a consensus to keep, but an interim decision that I feel will result in the least drama. In a few days or weeks after the spotlight has moved to another political talking point, this should be revisited with a new AfD. I realize this means that Wikipedia will be a news site for a short period of time but I don't see any real harm in that. BJ Talk 01:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Does not meet WP:BIO standards per one event notability. Wikipedia is not the news. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
A large portion of the debate dealt with Joe and his concerns. McCain referenced him probably over 2 dozen times. (correction by Chergles: 11 times, Obama referenced him 2 times)
The election and last night's debate hinged on him. Probably millions believe his original story. Dogru144 ( talk) 16:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.191.190 ( talk) 19:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
on the move|talk]] • contribs)