Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Haseldine

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep -- Joolz 10:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Patrick Haseldine
''A previous article on the subject of Patrick Haseldine was deleted after Votes for deletion/Patrick Haseldine. A new version was speedy deleted as a recreation of the original article, but a request for undeletion based on the second version being substantially different from the first was successful, since this is still a candidate for deletion it is being relisted on AFD per the undeletion process. My vote is below''. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. By itself being an unsuccessful runner for office, a fired diplomat and a person to prepare dossiers for the lod advocate is not notable; however the story in the article is an interesting one, and the combination of his achievements makes me believe that this person is notable. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you planning to re-check before the closing move, mate?Phase1 16:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. I've added a bunch of wiki-links, but it still needs sources cited, maybe some NPOV-ing, and generally needs to sound more like an encyclopedia article. --Angr/undefined 07:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This has some significant info, it just needs to be cleaned up and have its sources cited. – AxSkov ( ☏ ) 07:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. An obviously notable politician and diplomat.--Nicodemus75 10:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Latest edit has transformed something mediocre into a brilliant article.Phase1 21:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * should the {unreferenced} template be removed at this stage?Phase1 21:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Unless I am missing something, there do not appear to be any external references cited within the article at the time of this response. Hall Monitor 22:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Quite right at the time of the above response. Citations and references (inline and external) have since been added.Phase1 23:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and provide sources as per WP:CITE. Hall Monitor 22:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Sjakkalle. Add citations as per several comments above. DES (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep notable because of newsworthy political controversy of his case.---CH (talk) 08:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep well written article -- red stucco 08:38, 12 September 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.