Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James E. Sabow


 * 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. This apparently wasn't brought here as a deletion recommendation or even a procedural nomination of a PROD/Speedy tagged article, so I'm going to take the liberty of closing this early with no predjudice against another AfD in the future if someone wants to advance a deletion rationale.--Isotope23 14:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

James E. Sabow

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

notability questioned; article a stub; to promote discussion Simon Cursitor 08:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * To explain further, I came across this page on my ramblings, and noted that a previous editor recorded that they had cut the page down to a bare stub. I suspect that this means that, formerly, there was substantive text here, and while I could go for a revert, I would be unable to source myself.  In the circumstances, I have brought it here, so that those who want the page kept can sort out what it needs to have on it, beyond the present somewhat "conspiracy theory" text there.  No Vote -- Simon Cursitor 08:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's all take a deep breath. It could be that this person fails WP:BIO and should be deleted; I have no evidence of that, so I'm not expressing an opinion. However, the nominator did not ask for the article to be deleted. He asked for a discussion. Afd is generally the wrong forum for discussions of this kind - that's what the article's talk page is for. If discussions on the talk page lead nowhere, go find an admin and leave a message asking for help. I can see from the nominator's edit history that he's fairly inexperienced, and most of his work is in the deletion sector. So he naturally assumed that this is where discussions take place. The fact is that discussion take place on many different pages in Wikipedia. I extend an offer to the nominator to discuss this further on my talk page if it might be helpful. YechielMan 08:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and close discussion. For everyone involved, let me explain what's going on. On Feb. 2, 2007, the article under discussion was created as a stub for a US marine who died in 1991.  Fair enough.  Then the original creator decided to add a whole essay about causes of his death, which you can read here.  An alert user tags the expanded article as POV, and another user reverts it back to a one-line stub.  Then the original author added some new content again, and Simoncursitor nominated it for deletion.
 * Keep per Yechielman. There is sourcing, and it seems like the controversy over his death is adequate evidence of notability. Keep, but obviously expand (I don't know why it was stubified in the first place). Walton monarchist89 09:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment it was stubbed because what was there before the stubbing was an WP:OR essay and went against a whole slew of policies and guidelines (WP:NPOV, WP:BIO, WP:BLP, WP:NOT to name a few). I'd say there is no evidence whatsoever this individual meets WP:BIO...--Isotope23 14:10, 6 February 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.