Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenden Foster (4th nomination)


 * 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 Clearly a snowball case, last two afds in the past two months both resulted in keep. Nominator is an WP:SPA who is constantly edit-warring both this afd and the article, has made no edits outside this afd, and has just been blocked. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 20:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Brenden Foster

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

Blatant WP:OneEvent, WP:NOT,N, NOT if there ever was one baby. Thanks. This page has got to go. -Learneggs12 (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've noticed that previous AFDs on this article were closed after two days of commenting or so. Please leave this up for at least 7 days (between the first real comments and the last real comments) If this article is truly noteworthy, it will stand the test of time. Please do not close this debate when it is just getting started --Learneggs12 (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The last AfD, Articles for deletion/Brenden Foster (3rd nomination), which was closed as a unanimous "Keep" and less than a month ago, was kept open for over 15 days.--Oakshade (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I won't close this again as another SNOW, but hope that an admin will do so. This kind of repeat nomination until the nominator gets his/her own way (I suspect it is the same nominator each time, since these accounts have little other activity except in relation to this article) is surely disruptive. People should not be forced to keep repeating their comments time and time again in order to prevent someone claiming there is consensus to delete an article. --Kotniski (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I don't understand why this AFD keeps getting prematurely closed. I honestly do not think that AFDs are an unneccessary intrusion into the article. Firstly, I've reworked the article quite a bit since the last AFD. Secondly I understand that this requires many to make the same arguments the've made before. But since the last two AFDs were prematurely closed after a two day opening for comments for a page that only recieves ~20 page views per day, it's clear that there has been insufficient time for debate... That this is the fourth nomination reflects not on a persistence to delete this page, but on how poorly previous AFDs were handled.--Learneggs12 (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment- I've been reading policy and AFDs are supposed to last "at least five days (seven, in the case of articles and redirects)" No previous "Keep" AFDs have lasted that long... Last two lasted two days, I believe... --Learneggs12 (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:SNOW and WP:IAR which are also policy. There's a tendency to think that an open AFD will use up editor's time, and if there's no chance it is going to finish with anything but a particular outcome, closing it early will save time.  If you think the decision to close early is incorrect, you can list the article at WP:DRV to have that decision reviewed. JulesH (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As seen from the recent case of Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle, the broad consensus appears to be that articles for individuals such as Brenden Foster, who have received continuing coverage over a period of time, should be retained. This has held, despite frequent efforts to try to shoehorn individuals into a one-sided interpretation of WP:BLP1E. Much time and effort could be saved if we would modify BLP1E to better reflect consensus at multiple AfDs rather than fighting this battle one article at a time here at AfD. Alansohn (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable subject, prperly referenced, etc. I have to wonder the purpose of this returning AfD, the article's fourth. The nominator apparently being a single-purpose account seeking the deletion of the article certainly doesn't help. Dayewalker (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - Besides easily passing WP:BIO, the last AfD was closed less than a month ago as a unanimous "Keep". I'm assuming this nom is a sock of last nom simply by the repeated strange mistake of placing a biography in the "Places and transportation" category.--Oakshade (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Keep and Send to DRV mainly a procedural !vote as I believe this belongs in DRV since the nom is essentially asking for a reopening because the proper procedure was not followed, but I tend to agree with to consensus of the previous AfDs that he is notable because of significant coverage over time. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - If you think a deletion discussion was closed or handled improperly, or you don't agree with consensus, you should open a discussion on deletion review to see if the AfD process was carried out correctly or not. You should not open another AfD for that purpose. It doesn't help that the last three nominations were from single purpose accounts that nominated the article as one of their first edits. "(1st nom) (2nd nom)  (3rd nom)  (4th nom)"  — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think any editor is ready to file an AfD until after several hundred edits. This AfD was created as the editor's second edit. Alansohn (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Candidly, I thought the earlier "Speedy Keep per WP:NOTAGAIN" closure was questionable, but the outcome isn't really in doubt; it would have been interesting to see it discussed at DRV. However, as now we're seemingly past that: The subject is notable as verifiable through multiple reliable sources, and I don't see one-event as applicable here. Townlake (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the number of comments since the out-of-process reopening, doesn't it make sense at this point to just let this turn into snow? There's already a 3RR report on Learneggs at the noticeboards; adding a DRV to this seems like a waste of time. Townlake (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep Notable over time, per other speedy keep comments  Chzz  ►  20:36, 19 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.