Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Gillaspie


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 07:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Roy Gillaspie

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Being noted as one of three ministers who ordained another minister (whose article was deleted) hardly meets WP:N. Furthermore, although it's unclear from the article if the subject is still alive, but there appears to be some WP:BLP issues here too. And that self-reference to the talk page only leaves me with the impression that this article, just as the one for Arnold Murray did, will only draw POV pushers and fanatics. &oelig; &trade; 04:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * BLP is a primary policy on wikipedia, and you're an administrator, yet you ignore violations of the policy to discuss this for deletion. Why? --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 06:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I wasn't sure if it was a BLP, the article is not clear whether the subject is alive or not. -- &oelig; &trade; 06:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * btw, putting it up for deletion is not ignoring the problem. -- &oelig; &trade; 07:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, the article has been around for a few years and its edit history with all the BLP violations is still there. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, this source cited in the article refers to him as "the late" so it appears that this is not a biography of a living person. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

Well despite my nomination for deletion being for the article in the state it was before User:IP69.226.103.13's edits essentially resolved most of the issues, that still leaves only the question of the subjects notability. Even in its current stubbified state it's not much of an article but nevertheless I withdraw my original nom. -- &oelig; &trade; 19:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The current version of the article doesn't clearly assert a claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:01, 5 December 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.