Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Thomas Quick


 * 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 to delete. Neil ( ► ) 09:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

William Thomas Quick

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:BIO, no reliable sources Mackan. I'm also proposeing to delete the redirect Daily Pundit. 08:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: A lot of Google hits, but I am not seeing anything good. Very open to changing my mind if better sources can be found. J Milburn 10:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Re-write suggested; possibly expanding on the William Shatner connection would help. --Aarktica 14:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Sufficiently notable author, . I can't find any evidence for the William Shatner connection--he wasn't a co-author, certainly--but the Margaret Allan connection seems legitimate , , adding to notability . Agree with deleting the Daily Pundit redirect. JJL 14:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Those links are interesting, but the article still fails WP:BIO for Creative professionals (see link). Mackan 14:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I follow your point. But if someone with that many published books fails WP:BIO, then WP:IAR comes to mind. JJL 00:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Having written a lot of books is not a criteria for inclusion. Mackan 09:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - notable author. this is part of an organized attack on right winger entries Misheu 21:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Organized attack? Don't be ridiculous. Do I look that sinister to you? Mackan 21:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of being sinister, it's a matter of "a little power can be a dangerous thing". You think you are harming conservative publications by removing their wikipedia pages. I do not once remember getting a single hit from Wikipedia's page about our publication, but sometimes people prefer to go to Wikipedia than to our "About Us" page. Every site you've attacked was conservative. Granted that you need not nominate every site that may or may not be questionable. But that's not the point. Your history is a clear case of joining together with your friend "deranged" to attack conservative sites that may be cited in forum debates against you. As I've said, a little power is a dangerous thing. A powerful person may be gracious, but a person who has very little influence will use take it to the greatest extreme he can.user:globalpolitician
 * I'm stating a fact. You first try speedy deleting entries about right wing blogs.  then you put an AfD on them.  Then you claim they should just be merged.  How about asking to merge first?  How about putting a "sources missing" label first?  Do you enjoy making people run to find sources instead of putting in some basic effort yourself?  If I see 4-5 right wing blogs being brought up for deletion at the same time, it looks like an "attack" to me.  What does it look like to you? Misheu 05:06, 24 May 2007 (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.