Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar Marion


 * 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 keep. I'm closing a half day earlier to save someone else the trouble. Non-admin closure per deletion policy: unambiguous keep. YechielMan 02:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Oscar Marion

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Original Research, Unsourced, Unverifiable Sources again doing this for someone else who does know how to afd Oo7565 19:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * delete perStude62 resonsOo7565 19:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep (originally closed as Speedy Keep, but I reverted myself) - notable historical figure, sourced to Washington Post article, which references research that persuaded the White House and the Curator of the US Senate. NawlinWiki 20:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ultra strong keep - this is possibly the most ridiculous AfD that Oo7565 has proposed yet on their recent spree of dubious deletions. I've restructured the article (no content change) to make the references clearer (they were buried at the bottom in a "links" section). This is someone who served in the American War of Independence, has his picture hanging in the US Capitol, was a (named) major character in a Disney TV show for three years, and about whom George W Bush issued a specific proclamation (ie, not as part of a laundry list of other names). Yes there are only three sources, but two of those sources are the US Senate and the Washington Post (a front-page article, btw). Perhaps it would be quicker if Oo7565 were to give us a list of the articles xe proposes to keep? —  irides centi   (talk to me!)  20:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * comment iridescent pleas elook at my talk page at the last post the title help oki did this for Stude62 I DID NOT PROD THIS ARTICLE i did add prod as a checklest to say someone had look at proded article ok sorry fore being upset but i hope you see where i am comming from —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oo7565 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Comment - No you didn't prod it - you did however AfD it (with this comment) when it was deprodded as "unsourced original research" despite the sources from the Washington Post and US Senate being in the article at the time (the only source I've added since then was a citation to a TV listing for the airplay dates of "Swamp Fox"). The original prod was made by Stude62 on clearly spurious grounds that the Washington Post was "not a reliable source" (see the article's talk page).
 * I don't believe you're doing this maliciously and if I've given that impression in AfD discussions or on your talk page I apologise; however, as per the numerous warnings on your talk page, I do believe you're prodding/AfDing a huge number of articles, most of them totally inappropriate for deletion (see my previous comments regarding your actions here and Arkyan's comments on your talk page), and strongly suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:DP, WP:N, WP:V, and WP:REF before you continue to do so —  irides centi   (talk to me!)  22:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per NawlinWiki and Iridescenti. Newyorkbrad 21:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added a copy of the painting to the article & a mention of the fact that he appeared on Confederate currency (I don't know for sure, but I suspect not many black people managed that) —  irides centi   (talk to me!)  21:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep of course; I have notified the 2 prior participants in the discussion of the AfD in case they wish to comment. This does not mean that I agree with them in the slightest--far from agreeing, I can not even understand. DGG 23:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Bizarre nomination this one, he's clearly notable. Nick mallory 01:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per iridescenti. Maxamegalon2000 05:26, 27 April 2007 (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.