Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stopping the clock


 * 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. That a banned user created this page does not necessarily mean it has to be deleted, as explained by DGG. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Stopping the clock

 * – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete per WP:G5. page has been created on 2 April 2008 by Sarah Lynne Nashif, a sockpuppet of Sarsaparilla, although Sarsaparilla is banned since 25 March 2008. page has no substantial edits by other users. Cordyceps2009 (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Well-sourced and notable, not apparently covered elsewhere. I wish it had a better title though.  As it currently stands, that title could refer to a sporting event or any of a number of other things. TJRC (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  —TJRC (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per TJRC and Alansohn UltraMagnusspeak 13:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per G5, as noted by Cordyceps2009. I'd encourage anyone who wants to save this article to take it to userspace, read the eleven sources, and bring the page back as their own.  It's likely that this is going to be deleted, because G5 is not negotiable.  An article that has been created by a banned user is a speedy delete, no matter how good that article might be.  A harsh rule, perhaps, but the contributions of someone who uses a sockpuppet are not going to be presumed to be credible or reliable.  Mandsford (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment if this is a problem, may I suggest the article should be incubated so that it can be fixed, and any contributions by the above mentioned editor thoroughly checked. --UltraMagnusspeak 05:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think G5 is an issue. As DGG notes, G5 applies to "Pages created by banned users in violation of their ban having no substantial edits by others."  In contrast, this article has had substantial edits by others since the creating editor last touched it more than seven months ago.  Incubation isn't really needed, or appropriate, here.  There appears to be nothing substantively wrong with the article, other than the claim that it was created by a banned user. TJRC (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep no matter who created it is is notable, and there is be no problem finding  literally several thousand news articles. (at least half of the ones in  are directly relevant.) The article needs to be distinguished as Stopping the clock (politics) from its use in sports.   G5 is limited to those where there are no   substantial edits  by others, and that is already not the case here.  DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Passes WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 23:29, 19 October 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.