Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Tim Montgomerie


 * It really begins to look like you have a personal bee in your bonnet about this. What's the story? Come on share it with the rest of us ;-). These deletion debates can be very amusing. --SandyDancer 10:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment SandyDancer, I -am- a deletionist and I voted keep here. Citations are made in the article through, among other publications, The New York Times, the Financial Times, and multiple mentions on the BBC. My idea of the notability guidelines is that they are intended as an extension of the verifiability guidelines, in that a non-notable subject will also tend to be unverifiable. However, in this case, the subject is both notable and verifiable, and clearly passes the WP:BIO requirement of multiple secondary source mentions. Please also do remember to be civil and assume good faith. Seraphimblade 10:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I'm not the one with a problem about civility and assuming good faith around here...--SandyDancer 10:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you do believe I've been uncivil, please let me know why and I'll take your concerns under consideration. However, comments such as you made to JASpencer are neither civil nor assumption of good faith, being a pure guess regarding another user's thoughts and motives. Please comment and attempt to rebut what he said, don't make accusations of bias without cause or evidence. Seraphimblade 10:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't implying you had not assumed good faith, rather that JASpencer hadn't. Please read the full discussion before commenting. --SandyDancer 11:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)