Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik Rush (2nd 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   no consensus. Cirt (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Erik Rush
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable. Not discussed in secondary sources. Article seems to be self-promotion. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Passes WP:ATHLETE. The link provided by the page proves his existance and serves as a secondary source. However, I tagged with .  D ARTH P ANDA duel 20:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm no rugby fan, but Eric Rush' name is a familiar one on the national airwaves here in New Zealand. He was an All-Black and has represented NZ at the Commonwealth Games and in the Rugby Sevens tournaments. He is the subject of a book - albeit partly authored by himself. In what possible way could he be not notable? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm...let's see... Winner of two Commonwealth Games gold medals... captain of a world championship winning Rugby sevens team...capped nine times in full internationals in the national sport of arguably the world's top rugby-playing nation...link to reliable independent source (...quick google search finds BBC article... I think this is a pretty clear strong keep. Doesn't so much clear the bar at WP:ATHLETE as pole-vault over it. Why anyone would even think of suggesting otherwise is beyond me. Grutness...wha?  00:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

WHOOOOAAAAHHHH!!! hoooold the bus. There seems to be some big confusion here. The nomination's title lists Erik Rush - and that's where the AFD notice is; the article linked is Eric Rush, which is what my comments and presumably those of Darth Panda and Beeswaxcandle are referring to. Which is this for? If it's for Erik Rush, then all the above votes look suspiciously wrong, since this freelance author doesn't come close to anything resembling being an athlete, let alone passing WP:ATHLETE. That article also arguably looksdeletable. Can we have confirmation of which article has been nominated, and - if needed - start the discussion over? Grutness...wha?  00:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh wow. That certainly is a grievous mistake. Speedy keep on this particular AfD. One of us should go open a second AfD that points to Erik Rush. Thanks! D ARTH P ANDA duel 01:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed and relabeled AfD. D ARTH P ANDA duel 01:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Why would you delete this? It's simply fact that the guy is a Christian columnist and happens to disagree with Obama on certain issues. There may be a need for citations but to delete this would simply be censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.241.32 (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No opinion - Now that we're looking at the same Erik Rush I have no opinion on what should happen. I see that the previous AfD resulted in Keep. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete from me. If no secondary sources can be found, then it seems deletable - and it's been around long enough for that to seem possible. Previous afd did result in a keep consensus, but it was scantily debated and wasn't exactly a ringing endorsement. The only secondary sources I can easily locate via google seem to be pocket bios of him attached to columns he has written - hardly objective, independent secondary sources. Grutness...wha?  05:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Undeletable The guy (columnist, not the athlete) broke the Barack Obama / Rev. Wright story on the national news. Deleting that would be Stalinist-Orwellian. Seems nominator is a pro-Obama individual... littleseizure...'' —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC).
 * Hardly. If he did break the story, then he should be covered in any articles relating to that story, but still classifies largely as a WP:BLP1E. And with no secondary sources that deal with him (which is surprising, if he did indeed break that story), he still doesn't qualify for an article. Find secondary sources, and things change, but until then, this remains borderline, to say the least. Grutness...wha?  22:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It may well be deleted because it is an unsourced article that seems at the moment to qualify under WP:BLP1E. His political stance is totally irrelevant, and to assume that it is the reason why this is being considered for deletion is insulting to the editors commenting here. Grutness...wha?  05:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am pleased. Most Obama supporters think I am for McCain. :-)  Steve Dufour (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I copy the argument from the previous AfD: "The guy certainly has a large buzz on the conversative blogosphere, although it seems that 99% of it is in response to his attacks on Barack Obama. Certainly enough for the "cult following" criterion of WP:BIO." Explosive political commentary is, after all, a form of entertainment. RayAYang (talk) 06:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep – Just based on the prolific amount of publications and the variety of publications Mr. Rush has written for and sourced on Google News as shown here lead me to say Keep. ShoesssS Talk 12:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  15:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject is probably notable by non-Wikipedia definitions, but I can find no third-party reliable sources that treat the subject in a non-trivial way, and so it does not pass WP:N. Yes, there is buzz, and yes he's a "prolific" writer, but until subject is personally written about more extensively, the article cannot be appropriately sourced to satisfy Wikipedia guidelines. Jeremiah (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2008 (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.