Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Dooley (editor)


 * 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   no consensus. No discussion in half a month. WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Tom Dooley (editor)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD for two reasons: 1) Placing a PROD on the article which reads in part "All biographies of living people created after March 18, 2010, must have references" would appear to be an improper usage of PROD for an article which existed long before that date; 2) It appears there is a previously existing contested PROD, from January 2006. Bringing it here for discussion, as AFD would be a more appropriate venue than PROD. I'm not at all in disagreement with PRODer and others who came before him/her who assert that notability or evidence thereof is sorely lacking. Dennis Miller could have made the same George Russell Weller joke, been a lot funnier, and have reached a far greater audience than this sort of farting in the wind on whatever.com. RadioKAOS –&#32; Talk to me, Billy  04:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to Eclectica Magazine since that seems to be his only significant claim to fame. Mangoe (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)




 * Keep. Notable editor. I'm adding references and additional information to the article. IMHO the problem was with the article, not the notability (although I'll be the first to admit the subject is not the most notable of people, but I believe he does meet guidelines). If consensus doesn't agree with me then merge with the magazine article.--SouthernNights (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 03:41, 23 February 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.