Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essjay controversy (3rd 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 per guidelines. Disruptive nom, too soon after previous AfDs, nobody other than nominator is recommending deletion. Trebor 20:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay controversy

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is unencyclopedic, and we don't need to publicize internal strifes to the entire world. Let's see if we can get it deleted this time, if not, hopefully we will in the end. TMF Information 19:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy close and keep Nomination by new/SPA vandal account. Keep, this is a waste of our time. Can we get a WP:RFCU on this user? - Denny 19:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I also would like to ask for a CU on the nominator who meanwhile re-added a pre-formatted block of content to the article which has been repeatedly rm'd by consensus .Gwen Gale 20:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy close and keep As per DennyColt N o l 888 ( Talk )(Review me please) 19:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Too soon from previous nominations, nominator does not cite any policy rationale for deletion. Notability of event clearly estabilshed by press coverage. &#8212;M (talk • contribs) 19:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, notability has been quite well established. Repeated AfDs like this are highly disruptive and obnoxious. --tjstrf talk 19:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Clearly notable... it was well heard outside of wikipedia. Also, too soon to relist. Disruptive. -- Auto ( talk / contribs ) 19:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, too soon after this has gone through 2 previous AfDs. Gwen Gale 19:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy close. There are huge issues as to whether this article will ever be more than reporting on current news, nevermind the naval-gazing elements of it. I really doubt its encyclopedic value. But its too soon after previous nominations- need to wait another month or two before having this debate. WjBscribe 19:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - clear WP:POINT nomination. Wal  ton  Vivat Regina!  19:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Point violation? Closer to working on a 3RR for AfD nominations... disruptive, but I'm not sure relisting was to prove a point... lack of understanding is more likely... (keeping in spirit of AGF) -- Auto ( talk / contribs ) 20:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - too soon after this has gone through 2 previous AfDs; also per tjstrf and any other number of editors. Risker 20:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep and can we quit to play games?, thank you Alf Photoman  20:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, it is probably necessary to protect this page from further vandal attacks, including meritless nomination for deletion Alf Photoman  20:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Wow... I also think it should be protected. That edit history is nuts. Let this get hashed out on the talk page instead of in the edits. -- Auto ( talk / contribs ) 20:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep-I'm not completely sure on the merits of the article, but this sort of renomination isn't the way things should be done.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy close this nomination. As I understood it the whole point in the last decision in thi thus-far greuling fight over this article was to let it cool down a while before we approach it again.  Now is far too soon, merits of the article notwithstanding. Arkyan 20:30, 12 March 2007 (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.