Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Graham


 * 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 keep. howcheng  [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149;  e  ] 19:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Michael Graham
No vote - orphaned nomination by an anon. It's still stayed in the article through the last several editors' revisions, so I'll go ahead and open it up for discussion. Supposedly, Mr. Graham himself wants the article deleted, but he's been a talk show host for several relatively major stations, and his firing from WMAL is particularly controversial. --Idont Havaname 23:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. As per Daniel Brandt, Mr.Graham wanting the article removed is not a valid reason for so doing. wikipediatrix 23:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)]


 * Keep. It appears that information currently contained on the page is well-documented, and has sufficient corroborating links.  Some previous versions that contained information beneficial to Graham failed to include corroboration, and often relied on statements made by Graham himself.  While there have been some instances of vandalism, these have been quickly removed or resolved by persons regularly reviewing this page.  I see no reason for this article to be deleted., however, I do believe that the article written by Graham in the Charleston Citipaper  is self-serving, and contains no information that could serve to provide a better understanding of this biography.  Thus, I believe it should be relocated from the main page, and posted on the discussion section. 68.50.149.220 01:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well-known radio talk-show host. -- Mwalcoff 02:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as an attack page and delete Daniel Brandt too while you're there. This is just getting ridiculous.  What are we, a smear campaign? Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 04:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - How is it an attack page? Everything appears to be quite well sourced. Controversy is often negative. Such is the nature of the beast. FCYTravis 10:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep, notwithstanding his attempts to jump on the bandwagon of that guy who's name I can't spell. --Last Malthusian 16:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Firing was given national exposure. Newsworthy. 151.200.189.62 16:54, 12 December 2005 (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.