Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James O'Donnell


 * 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 delete.  howch e  ng   {chat} 21:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

James O'Donnell
This does not seem important enough for an encyclopedia JamesTeterenko 06:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

This has been around long before you, buddy. Who are you to all of a sudden decide whether or not it is significant enough to remain on wikipedia? Get over yourself, this has been here for months and deservedly so. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. comments posted above by 24.185.85.144
 * months? 20 days is not even one month. -- Astrokey44 |talk 14:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete If this person's writings have been compared favourably to some of the best sports writers alive, the critical assessment should be cited and/or linked to in order for a researcher to look in to this for themselves. As it stands, the article is POV, not Wikified nor does it contain useful research material. -- (aeropagitica) [[Image:Flag_of_England.svg|25px|UK]] 07:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks good to me. We'll keep it. I also read the work and I personally would compare it to some of the greatest sportswriters of any era. It is a valuable tool of research in that it has very informative nfl draft articles and the links can be found for his articles on the website. (Lunkwill) 07:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC) comments posted above by 24.185.85.144 again


 * Delete, and ignore votes by vandal 24.185.85.144 - Lukas 08:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete "James O'Donnell" nfl draft gets only 50 hits or so, most of them arent to do with him. Plus the article was created by a user who has been blocked from wikipedia. -- Astrokey44 |talk 14:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In that case speedy delete under CSDG5. In any case, delete as vanity. Zunaid 14:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a one-week block for vandalism, not a permanent block (yet). Delete anyway as non-notable, since I'm finding a grand total of one article by this guy.   -Colin Kimbrell 20:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable type of person. Stifle 01:28, 14 January 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.