Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George W. M. Reynolds


 * 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The result of the debate was Speedy Keep; article stubbed, nom withdrawn. I'd like to point out that far from being an incorrectly brought AFD, the article as it stood when nominated was actually speedy deleteable under CSD G1. kingboyk 13:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

George W. M. Reynolds
Empty article. M1ss1ontomars2k4 06:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC) Capitalistroadster 08:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have left a note in MKoyle's (the authors) talk page asking him to turn into an article as soon as possible. I will create a short stub for him in the meantime. There is some evidence that he is a notable English writer from the Victorian era.
 * Keep. Stub now created hopefully establishing notability. Capitalistroadster 09:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Should be an early closure shortly I'd predict. Harr o 5 10:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep as above. The practice of rapidly tagging articles-in-progress for deletion shortly after their initial creation is damaging to Wikipedia, and consistently raises WP:AGF issues.  What harm is there in waiting, especially when the original author has a solid track record? Monicasdude 14:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Capitalistroadster, but this article should not have been created until someone had time to at least make it a proper stub. Esquizombi 16:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Capitalist. I agree entirely with Esquizombi and disagree entirely with Monicasdude, I should say, as to the propriety of one's tagging an article for deletion when the article is in progress.  Articles should not be created in such rudimentary forms as are insufficient to establish notability or encyclopedic worth or quality.  Joe 18:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep hmmm...am I allowed to unrecommend for delete? M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You most certainly are. --kingboyk 13:10, 24 March 2006 (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.