Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Devereux-Rochester
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 Speedy Keep/Keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure). Unanimous consensus to keep based on nominator's misunderstanding of deletion policy and speed in nominating recently created article for AfD. WilliamH (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Elizabeth Devereux-Rochester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
unreferenced, nn Ziggy Sawdust 15:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Premature nomination. The article has only just been created, let it stay for a while to see if it gets the references it needs. Julesn84 (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Found this [[1]]. Not sure that it's the best source but if the article was given more then 60 seconds to grow...--Cube lurker (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, of course. Ziggy Sawdust has been at this for awhile; he recently got Twinkle and has since been on a spree of trying to speedy-delete (and when that fails, AfD) articles based on his own assertions of "notability" even though he clearly actually knows absolutely nothing about the subject. He needs to get a grip on himself, fast. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and delete Ziggy Sawdust :-) He's much faster than we can be, do we have to go through this process on everything he tags?Doug Weller (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: This is insane; AfDing less than one minute after the article's creation? Definite bad faith nomination. RGTraynor 16:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is geting silly. Go read the guide to deletion and the relevant policies. Until then, lay off the twinkle. Bfigura (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Clearly notable, sources easy to find, whap the nominator with a rolled-up newspaper for NOT DOING THE TRIVIAL RESEARCH and for biting new articles. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw this entire mess because I was a moron to nom it in the first place Ziggy Sawdust 18:10, 22 April 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.
