Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Young Clark


 * 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) Tim Song (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Edward Young Clark

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Just dont see how this article presents notability. Torkmann (talk) 03:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete: No notability. -- Pyho T / C 03:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This Google News archive search presents several references from reliable sources. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions.  -- Eastmain (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, the notability is in the first sentence, and there are many more references in the news to supplement this stub. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not only is this plainly notable, but its nomination for deletion saps what little inclination I have left to contribute to an endeavour in which the inclusion of material such as this is disputed while the "ninth episode of the thirteenth season of the animated television series South Park" is considered notable enough for detailed treatment. --Paularblaster (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Paularblaster, there's room for both. Let the TV fans work on    their stuff, it doesn't interfere with serious content. The article would be more obviously notable with some considerable expansion.    DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying the TV stuff should be deleted; but when the people who devote their time to it decide that the serious stuff should be deleted, it just wastes everybody else's time. --Paularblaster (talk) 08:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep-- In line of sentiments of Paularblaster. It makes me cry knowing I'll get yelled at for things like removing a link to someone's myspace blog that was being used as a sole reference on a article they created about themselves, and that at the same time I still have to watch for these things. Some credit is due to the nomination though. For the first time ever I cannot in any way whatsoever relate the philosophies in WP:GARAGE or WP:DUCK to any aspect of a discussion. ♪ DaTheisen(talk) 15:37, 28 October 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.