Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Connelly (writer)


 * 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The result was article was substantially improved post-nom, so - keep (nomination withdrawn). –xenotalk 20:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Joe Connelly (writer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unsourced BLP of a writer. WIkidemon is mass-reverting PROD tags from unsourced BLPs, without even bothering to try to source them. Unit Anode  00:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WITHDRAWN BY NOM, CONDITIONAL TO SOURCES STAYING IN THE ARTICLE. Request that the first administrator that notices this note close the AFD. Regards, Unit  Anode  19:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Writers are notable, especially when their books are notable and made into movies by notable directors.  Grsz 11  02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable. I added some references. The nominator should review WP:BEFORE - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  - Eastmain (talk • contribs)  03:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Sourcing verifies notability.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I am not sure whether all of Wikidemon's deproddings are justified, but many of them are, such as this. Each time one of them is sourced, it proves that the prodding was  unjustified is the prodding. It is time we settled the whole issue, by simply making WP:BEFORE a requirement, here and at WP:PROD.    DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, we could strike WP:BEFORE completely and also change the detailed policy wording to disallow keeping unsourced material past a certain deadline after it has been added, in accordance with the broader policies in effect. ++Lar: t/c 18:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My standard for deprodding was a lot stricter than that. I only deproded articles that, upon review, were not plausibly deletable under current policy.  That was somewhere more than half of the ones I reviewed.  The remainder of the PRODs were at least arguable, even if most of them failed in the end.  - Wikidemon (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Highly notable Vartanza (talk) 12:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sources exist. Might want to check before starting an AfD in the future. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hypothetical existence of sources is insufficient under policy, they need to actually be in the article for the unsourced material to remain. Might want to source stuff instead of kvetching about policy. ++Lar: t/c 18:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and suggest speedy close. It's obviously notable and now sourced.  The author wrote a bestselling book that became a movie.  I deprodded, and restored the close, because there is no plausible argument for deletion, and no chance at all that this article will be deleted.  The nominator has reverted two attempts to close.  - Wikidemon (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete the article if it remains in the state it was in at the time of the nom, which was valid. Keep if it remains in at least as good a state as it is of this writing. ++Lar: t/c 18:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Pardon but I don't know any other way to say this. What the hell does that mean?--Cube lurker (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems pretty straightforward to me. this version of the article is deleteable on sight. Completely unsourced. Has been for more than 2 years. Astoundingly valid AfD nomination, since the PROD was removed without sources being added. this version of the article is adequately sourced, and would qualify as a keep. IF the article is reverted to something approximating the earlier unsourced version, I think deletion is appropriate. But that's not going to happen, is it? Hopefully not, anyway. ++Lar: t/c 18:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So you're saying keep since we're talking about the article as it stands? I haven't seen anyone suggesting reversion to an inferior version.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, as we all know, this is a scuffle over the failed attempt to start deleting BLP articles out of process for lack of citation while the RfC is in process on how to deal with them. Lar is at one extreme of the opinion spectrum here, that such articles should be deleted on sight even while the RfC is in process.  That's not going to be the outcome of RfC, and ArbCom has repudiated that position.  The article is not going to be deleted, the nominator has re-opened twice, so here we are prolonging a moot discussion just to prove a WP:POINT.  - Wikidemon (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You will stop accusing me of bad-faith, or it's you that will be sanctioned. My nomination was done in good-faith. Unit  Anode  19:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You sound like you need to take a break. You are not doing the encyclopedia or any of its editors a favor with this misguided belligerence.  I get that you have a nonstandard interpretation to the rules.  You're certainly free to your interpretation but when it crosses the line to process abuse, confrontation, and edit warring, you need to cut it out.  I do not appreciate the mischaracterization of my edit history or the over the top threats.  You're capable of making fine contributions to the encyclopedia when you edit collaboratively and in good spririts.  Please keep that in mind.  - Wikidemon (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2010 (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.