Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secularist of the Year


 * 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. Even the nominator !voted to keep the article. (non-admin closure) &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  02:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Secularist of the Year

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

National Secular Society article covers the subject in as much detail is necessary. Almost no secondary source coverage. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge to National Secular Society. That article does not cover the subject in sufficient detail. There is coverage of this around but for now it would fit better within the parent article. --Michig (talk) 07:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Secondary sources only need to be added. This article is likely to expand over time. I don't see much point in merging it only to branch it off again later, along the line of several other articles. --Giuliopp (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Could be improved with more secondary sources, which certainly exist. --87.113.11.134 (talk) 09:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. It could be further added to, but it is an event well covered in the press and so significant.--Hontogaichiban (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Snow keep and friendly WP:TROUT for please. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Apologies, I meant to PROD this in order to find some more references, but shouldn't have even done that, this was just down to laziness in searching on my part so sorry. Samwalton9 (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2013 (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.