Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pub Politics


 * 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   delete. Tone 20:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Pub Politics

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A claim of notability made on the article's talk page was sufficient for me to remove a speedy tag and bring the article here for a more thorough discussion. To me the racist incident in question contributes only (if at all, given WP:BLP1E etc.) to the notability of the individual who made the statement and I cannot think that any of this furore contributes to the notability of an Internet-based chat programme, but we'll see how this shakes out. Accounting4Taste: talk 16:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Also, since this is a web-based show, it also falls under WP:WEB, and should further be saved/not deleted because it is not advertising, which is one of the things that the procedure looks to exclude, it is notable (as above, which is also a prerequisite for WP:WEB) and it is certainly of historical significance, since it is related to the election of the one of the very few indian americans to political office in the US, and the first female indian american to high political office, and the first indian american (and I beleive first female) to the (possible) governorship of South Carolina, and even if halley doesn't win, it would still be related to the fact that she lost and possibly a contributing factor. Further, the article cites secondary sources that are reliable. So, to reiterate, the article is appropriate under all the provisions of both WP:N & WP:WEB, and also, importantly I think, does not violate the purpose of those procedures (ie, to prevent advertising and indescriminate inclusion of articles). And I apologize if these statements should not be here and ask someone to direct me if they should be elsewhere. - nygdan
 * Delete. I tried the CSD, and stand by this AFD. Not convinced about the WP:N here. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 16:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable. andy (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Save/Do not delete The show is not very notable, however the incident was covered by many news outlets, including stations like MSNBC on Olberman's show. It may not be very notable, but it definitely fits under WP:N, especially, but not only "has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. " Lets also remember whatWP:N is all about, "to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics." This is clearly not an indiscriminate inclusion. edit to add:
 * Delete - fails WP:N and WP:GNG. No independent sources with significant coverage.  In the future, the two nominators (speedy and AfD) might want to consider waiting longer than four minutes after an article is created before nominating it for deletion.  The article had not even existed for an hour and it had already been nominated for speedy deletion, it was contested, and an AfD was started.  While it's pretty clear that this subject is not notable, you do need to give the author a chance to add some sources.  There is a notice at the top of Special:Newpages (where you presumably found this article) which specifically encourages editors to not attack articles within minutes of creation.    Snotty Wong   express 20:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but... in many cases (such as this one) you simply know it's going nowhere. Why wait? andy (talk) 20:30, 30 June 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.