Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Maxwell (commentator)


 * 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. Snottygobble 11:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The nominator has asked that the reasons behind the decision to keep be clarified. The article was correctly identified as a copyright violation and nominated for deletion in good faith. That the subject of the article was sufficiently notable to warrant a Wikipedia article was not under dispute. During the debate the article was rewritten from scratch, thus removing any grounds for deletion. Therefore I closed the debate as a speedy keep. Snottygobble 23:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Jim Maxwell (commentator)
Content was discovered to be a copyright violation; according to the logs, initial contributor has made no attempt to salvage the entry. Folajimi 17:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, possible speedy, as copyvio. -- Grafikm_fr   (AutoGRAF)  18:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as copyvio. Jim Maxwell is a notable Australian commentator especially in relation to cricket and would warrant an article. It shouldn't be a copyvio, however. Capitalistroadster 18:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Capitalistroadster 18:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Capitalistroadster 18:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC).


 * Delete per nom, replacement stub article is at Jim Maxwell (commentator)/Temp. -- I@n &equiv; talk 02:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * /Temp article now deleted; sorry I@n, I didn't notice your comment until after I rewrote the article. Snottygobble 01:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The copyvio should have been speedy deleted, however it should now be replaced by I@n's version and speedily kept. JPD (talk)
 * Speedy Replace with clean stub article as referenced above. This should be a speedy case. The articles place in the encyclopedia is not under review, just the copyvio. Ans  e  ll  12:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, article rewritten. Snottygobble 01:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per Snottygobble. --Arnzy (Talk) 05:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, a marvelous entry, absolutely cracking shot! Lankiveil 05:35, 3 May 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.