Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rod Dreher (3rd nomination)


 * 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. Courtesy-blanked prior nomination was closed yesterday. Suggest that this also should be blanked for the same reason: but renominating the article a day after a previous AfD was closed, while accusing the closing admin of bad faith, is not the way we play. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Rod Dreher
AfDs for this article: 

Per last nom. The last one was closed in bad faith but most people wanted the page deleted. Let's end the Dreher drama already.Fortynateyate (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Article satisfies the general notability guidelines, demonstrating significant coverage of the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 03:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ULTRA STRONG SUPER-SPEEDY DELETE Wilerch (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC) — Wilerch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Strong Keep. Notability has been established. While more sources would be better, he has been interviewed by NPR and Fox News Radio, and his writing has been reviewed in such prestigious publications as the New York Times. Also, for those reading the confusion of the last AFD, the identity of User:Rod Dreher has not been confirmed as actually being Rod Dreher. Additionally, if a BLP subject wants their article deleted, the proper procedure is for them to contact the Wikimedia Foundation. AFD is not the appropriate venue for that sort of nomination. As a final point, many votes were cast on the last AFD because the article had been a target for BLP violations. We have policies to deal with this (i.e. reverting any vandalism that pops up). Just because it had slander trouble in the past does not mean that we should delete it now. It just means people need to watch it closer. Firestorm  Talk 04:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The legitimate sources now contained in the article show that Mr. Dreher is an active commentator whose book was reviewed in numerous leading publications, who publishes in prominent journals, and who is personally responsible for a buzzword ("crunchy conservative") that gets a lot of play in conservative (and not-so-conservative) media. On a side note: it is utterly incorrect to say that the last AfD was "closed in bad faith," and there is no basis whatsoever to cast aspersions on those who decided it was appropriate to close it and start over in light of the false pretenses upon which the prior AfD was predicated.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * comment If this article get's kept it will almost surely keep being re-nominated. BTW, the reasons for keeping I see are quite weak. Fortynateyate (talk) 04:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The closing admin of the last AfD noted that it was a bad faith nomination. In that regard, relisting is appropriate. However, if this AfD shows a consensus to keep the article, then further nominations could be deemed as bad faith and closed summarily. —C.Fred (talk) 04:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Proposal can we make an article about the book and redirect the one on the author there?? Fortynateyate (talk) 04:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sure, it may have been a bad faith nomination, but to say "most voted delete" is a bit of a simplification, and it seemed to me that a lot of the delete votes were for reasons other than lack of notability. "Per last nom"--can nom. not give a reason for deletion here? The person is plenty notable; if there is vandalism, it can be handled in the usual ways. The only drama is that this is the third nomination; the first two were bad-faith nominations, and to argue an article should be deleted because of two bad-faith nominations for deletion strikes me as contrary to common sense. Drmies (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - subject of article clears notability threshold. Untick (talk) 04:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is clearly enough material on the subject to write a good well-sourced article. Dean B (talk) 05:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  --  Ray  Talk 05:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As an author, he passes the WP:CREATIVE threshhold in the for "Notability (people)" guideline in three ways: (1) his work (in this case, his book, Crunchy Cons) has been reviewed multiple times; (2) he is responsible for creating (or identifying) the "crunchy conservative" concept or phenomenon, which could be considered "significant"; (3) this has been cited by his peers, although I'm not sure how widely. The strongest point is #1; the other two points are worth considering. -- Noroton (talk) 05:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, again, he's a well-known conservative commentator and the article has adequate sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep It pushes the boundaries of assuming good faith when an editor registers specifically to AFD this article immediately after another editor registed specifically to AFD this article. This nomination completely fails to respond to the fact that the last nomination was made in bad faith, and that the delete !votes were made based on a faulty premise.  The drama was already ended until this nominator chose to restart it. Resolute 14:04, 19 March 2009 (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.