| Revision as of 18:30, 28 January 2010 editLar (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators29,174 edits →Joe Connelly (writer): clarifications← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:32, 28 January 2010 edit undoLar (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators29,174 editsm →Joe Connelly (writer): split invalidlyNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| ** Alternatively, we could strike WP:BEFORE completely and also change the detailed policy wording to disallow keeping unsourced material past a certain deadline after it has been added, in accordance with the broader policies in effect. ++]: ]/] 18:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC) | ** Alternatively, we could strike WP:BEFORE completely and also change the detailed policy wording to disallow keeping unsourced material past a certain deadline after it has been added, in accordance with the broader policies in effect. ++]: ]/] 18:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Strong Keep''' Highly notable ] (]) 12:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC) | *'''Strong Keep''' Highly notable ] (]) 12:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' - Sources exist. Might want to check before starting an AfD in the future. - ] (]) | *'''Keep''' - Sources exist. Might want to check before starting an AfD in the future. - ] (]) (]) 17:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ** Hypothetical existence of sources is insufficient under policy, they need to actually be in the article for the unsourced material to remain. Might want to source stuff instead of kvetching about policy. ++]: ]/] 18:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC) | ** Hypothetical existence of sources is insufficient under policy, they need to actually be in the article for the unsourced material to remain. Might want to source stuff instead of kvetching about policy. ++]: ]/] 18:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| (]) 17:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' and suggest speedy close. It's obviously notable and now sourced. The author wrote a bestselling book that became a movie. I deprodded, and restored the close, because there is no plausible argument for deletion, and no chance at all that this article will be deleted. The nominator has reverted two attempts to close. - ] (]) 18:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' and suggest speedy close. It's obviously notable and now sourced. The author wrote a bestselling book that became a movie. I deprodded, and restored the close, because there is no plausible argument for deletion, and no chance at all that this article will be deleted. The nominator has reverted two attempts to close. - ] (]) 18:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' the article if it remains in the state it was in at the time of the nom, which was valid. '''Keep''' if it remains in at least as good a state as it is of this writing. ++]: ]/] 18:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' the article if it remains in the state it was in at the time of the nom, which was valid. '''Keep''' if it remains in at least as good a state as it is of this writing. ++]: ]/] 18:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 18:32, 28 January 2010
Joe Connelly (writer)
- Joe Connelly (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced BLP of a writer. WIkidemon is mass-reverting PROD tags from unsourced BLPs, without even bothering to try to source them. UnitAnode 00:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Writers are notable, especially when their books are notable and made into movies by notable directors. Grsz 02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly notable. I added some references. The nominator should review WP:BEFORE - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Sourcing verifies notability.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I am not sure whether all of Wikidemon's deproddings are justified, but many of them are, such as this. Each time one of them is sourced, it proves that the prodding was unjustified is the prodding. It is time we settled the whole issue, by simply making WP:BEFORE a requirement, here and at WP:PROD. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Alternatively, we could strike WP:BEFORE completely and also change the detailed policy wording to disallow keeping unsourced material past a certain deadline after it has been added, in accordance with the broader policies in effect. ++Lar: t/c 18:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Highly notable Vartanza (talk) 12:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - Sources exist. Might want to check before starting an AfD in the future. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hypothetical existence of sources is insufficient under policy, they need to actually be in the article for the unsourced material to remain. Might want to source stuff instead of kvetching about policy. ++Lar: t/c 18:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep and suggest speedy close. It's obviously notable and now sourced. The author wrote a bestselling book that became a movie. I deprodded, and restored the close, because there is no plausible argument for deletion, and no chance at all that this article will be deleted. The nominator has reverted two attempts to close. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete the article if it remains in the state it was in at the time of the nom, which was valid. Keep if it remains in at least as good a state as it is of this writing. ++Lar: t/c 18:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Pardon but I don't know any other way to say this. What the hell does that mean?--Cube lurker (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Seems pretty straightforward to me. this version of the article is deleteable on sight. Completely unsourced. Has been for more than 2 years. Astoundingly valid AfD nomination, since the PROD was removed without sources being added. this version of the article is adequately sourced, and would qualify as a keep. IF the article is reverted to something approximating the earlier unsourced version, I think deletion is appropriate. But that's not going to happen, is it? Hopefully not, anyway. ++Lar: t/c 18:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Pardon but I don't know any other way to say this. What the hell does that mean?--Cube lurker (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)