Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Burt


 * 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 (non-admin closure). Potential bad faith nomination. Give articles a chance before nominating them so soon after creation. WilliamH (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

John Burt

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unreferenced, non-notable Z i g g y   S a w  d u s t  19:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ahem. There were two references in the article at the time you nominated this, one of them a New York Times profile. Please look at articles more carefully before rushing to the AfD button -- your hastiness causes other editors more work than is necessary. Oh, and for the record, keep: clearly meets WP:BIO, even in the stubby state it's in. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep It was stubbed with two references for notability in two areas (crime and pro-life). He's related to a number of organizations and individuals.  --DHeyward (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep but clean up. It isn't really unreferenced, as Quasi points out, and the NYT profile gives plenty of evidence of his longterm anti-abortion activism even apart from his connection to Griffin. (And a quick Google bears this out as well.) It's in poor shape, but it isn't really a deletion candidate. --Dhartung | Talk 22:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the cleanup.
 * Keep I don't see a problem here. Jpmonroe (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep It would be nice if we could add more biographical information here (such as birthdates, places, etc), but the article appears to be well-sourced.  B figura  (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It was put up for deletion less than a minute after creation. I don't know why Ziggy is so quick to nom.  I doubt he had time to read it or check the sources.   He was blocked right after a number of noms for misuse of twickle.  Anyone want to speedy this as a badd faith nom? --DHeyward (talk) 03:48, 22 April 2008 (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.