Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Uther Pendragon


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Regards, MacMedtalk stalk 03:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Arthur Uther Pendragon

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fixing nomination for an IP, so can't get their rationale. However, after a quick look at the article I'd guess it's for notability reasons. He's done a few bits and bobs, but nothing that should qualify him for an article. I wouldn't be hugely offended if you all disagree, but it's definitely worth a discussion. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, interesting eccentric -- Snowded  TALK  18:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * An analysis based on Wikipedia guidelines would probably be better....Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure I agree with that link, I said interesting eccentric, not just interesting. Personally I think someone prepared to go to those extremes, get themselves arrested in pursuit of,being consistent with that eccentricity, attempt to re-found a religion and generally make the world a more interesting place is notable.  -- Snowded  TALK  18:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Poor justifications aside, he has been covered by more than one source that passes WP:RS (Independent and Guardian). While not the best written, nor the heaviest covered, the subject matter does qualify under general notability.  A poorly written vanity piece doesn't diminish the fact that meets the criteria.  Fix instead of delete.  Dennis Brown (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dennis Brown. I checked and confirm that the article's subject has been featured as a subject in multiple reliable sources.   Blue Rasberry    (talk)   09:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as he's no more eccentric then the pope, cardinals, bishops, priests 'or' ministers, rabis, patriarchs etc, etc. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - bizarre, odd, and twisted. I am so confused.  Beats anything at WP:ODD. Bearian (talk)
 * Keep -- notable by virtue of multiple television intervies, a published biography, & the (various) court recirds. -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2011 (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.