Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It Happened to Alexa Foundation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 delete. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It Happened to Alexa Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Looking at the revision history, this article was created not because of the organization, but more for a controversy surrounding political commentator Bill O'Reilly. In fact, only three sentences are dedicated in even mentioning the foundation. It's just a stub article with a large segment of undue weight. Showtime2009 (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a coatrack. Alexius08 (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to some gestalt article. This controversy is in the same class as when John McCain was invited to speak at a graduation ceremony, by the school president Bob Kerrey, a long time friend of McCain. and after student objections to McCain speaking at the event were disregarded, Jean Sara Rohe speaking at the graduation ceremony, prior to McCain, said;
--Byzerodivide (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't care for this article as written, but I really think coatrack issues are better dealt with through editing rather than deletion. I would just cut the entire O'Reilly segment out. Hairhorn (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - .. that's assuming the foundation is notable at all, I'm not addressing that point. Hairhorn (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but.. I think there are concerns with the article the way it is currently written which i think have some merit, however; I see the article as 'fixable' I dont think we need to delete the article. Some trimming and re writing could be done.Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know, the main contributors on this article were never really focused on the foundation itself. I mean there have only been two edits since March 31. Showtime2009 (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'mperator 00:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to coatrack purposes. I doubt that, if kept, the article will be re-written, it will stay in the form it is in now. As far as Byzerodivide, his explanation is a case of OTHERCRAPEXISTS and not a reasonable excuse. John Asfukzenski (talk) 06:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I agree with the WP:COATRACK concerns. If anyone think this article can be rewritten to focus on the organisation itself, rather than the O'Reilly controversy, then please do so, but I'm not convinced it's sufficiently notable for an article anyway. Robofish (talk) 02:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. 46 Lexis/Nexis hits, only 6 of them mention O'Reilly. Coatrack issues should be dealt with through editing, not deletion. Gamaliel (talk) 19:48, 1 June 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.
