Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Fricke


 * 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The result was   Keep nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Aaron Fricke

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

UNreferenced biography. Please delete. Alio The Fool 22:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. My first thought on reading it is that it should be easy to demonstrate notability if it is true and not overstated. This may be rescuable. I will see what I can dig up. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am seeing lots of hits in Google Books (not just for his books but for people writing about him) and in Google Scholar. His news coverage is showing up in Google News but it is old and seems to be pay-to-view content. I have added the court ruling as a reference and will tag for rescue. The article needs a lot of work but I am pretty sure he is notable. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  —DanielRigal (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  —DanielRigal (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  —DanielRigal (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep in agreement with User:DanielRigal. I did my own cursory search before moving from the article to the AfD. I found multiple hits in Google Books that would prove suitable for expansion and sourcing, as well as enough hits in Google News to show that the event has had repercussions in law and society and not only was covered in depth at the time, but continues to receive coverage for its ramifications. Not being referenced is no reason for deletion if they are available.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If it has so people should add references. I take it to AFD if its an unreferenced bio for a long time. This is like that. Someone now fixed it and itis referenced so withdraw. I am wiling to nominate for deletion if its 1 a bio 2 unreferenced 3 been unreferecned for at least a year. Alio The Fool 00:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Even in its form as nominated, it had clear indicia of notability; it just needed references. DanielRigal's edits have provided references to back up the claims.  Keeping is now a no-brainer. TJRC (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to me that there are enough WP:RS to meet WP:N — Ched :  Yes?   ©  14:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - At first glance this articles appears to be about a person notable only for one event, however this event/person has legs so it deserves an article. Unionsoap (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment In light of the near-unanimity here, and the substantial improvements made to the article since its nomination, I suggest we invoke the Snowball Clause and close this as Keep. TJRC (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and withdraw. Article now has referneces so it is ok. Alio The Fool 00:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.