Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allan Jenkins (2nd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 02:00, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable/Attack page --CVaneg 05:21, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, probably speedy. Attack page. Some of that stuff is potentially libellous.Keep. Bad stuff removed; good, if stubby, article on notable person. android↔talk 05:41, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC); vote change: android↔talk 22:44, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)- Keep (but clean up). Allan Jenkins really is an editor at the Observer, which makes him notable. Remove the "potentially libellous" material, sure, but the article itself should stay. Kelly Martin 05:58, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
- But does just being an editor make him noteworthy? --CVaneg 06:44, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Editor of the Observer? Damn straight it makes him notable. The Observer is one of the UK's most important newpapers. Kelly Martin 10:25, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
- But does just being an editor make him noteworthy? --CVaneg 06:44, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup. Editors of national newspapers are noteworthy. Kappa 07:46, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Hopefully I excised all the POV stuff now. Mgm|(talk) 12:35, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
- It's better, at least. I'd like to see citations for the alleged affairs and the budget overruns, but if wishes were fishes.... Kelly Martin 16:57, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge onto The Observer since everything stated about Allan is also relevant to the main article on the newspaper. Radiant_* 15:16, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge as per Radiant! VladMV ٭ talk 21:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, under the bar of notability. Megan1967 05:59, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep no longer libellous. The Observer is in Britain, I'm in Oklahoma. I've heard of it. That, inmy mind makes the paper important enough for the editor to be notable. Dsmdgold 22:38, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, lacks notability. Ejrrjs | What? 01:09, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Merge or keep. I'd vote keep if someone will take responsibility for expanding this, merge otherwise. Can't imagine how people think this lacks notability. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:49, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Editor of the observer probably sufficiently notable. Any notable or controversial tidbits re his editorship that would enhance? Fawcett5 21:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.