Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deborah Frisch (2nd nomination)

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 mistaken nomination. I hope everyone approaches this with an open mind the next time. Grandmasterka 07:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deborah Frisch

Previous AfD was closed with no consensus. It now consists almost entirely of unsourced statements, and the one that does have a source does not establish her notability in any way. It has also been a target of vandalism by User:Warriordumot, who is actually the subject of the article. Danny Lilithborne 23:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I'd give it a little more than 7 days between AFDs. If the uncited facts are cause for concern, remove them. Yomangani^talk 23:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Doing that would only leave one statement in the article, which would make it speediable as an nnbio. Danny Lilithborne 01:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Possibly, but given the borked and agitated nature of this so far, it won't hurt to wait if no BLP vios are in the article. It's not a race... · XP · 02:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - old close had conditions. Conditions were not met. Delete. JBKramer 00:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strongest possible keep, possibly as bad-faith speedy reopening of closed AfD. System was gamed so that attempts to meet conditions were immediately reverted by a tag team of admins and editors. And I make this vote even though I voted strong delete on the original AfD. --Aaron 00:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral, to be re-evaluated in 14 days time. If the prior conditions haven't been met, then I will vote delete; if they are, then keep. For now, let this AFD run it's course. Daniel.Bryant 01:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed, XP put it better than I could of. Keep, and relist with prejudice on 2006-10-31 if the "conditions" from the last AfD haven't been met. Daniel.Bryant 02:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep For now, AfD shouldn't be a shoot till you score game. Speedy close this AfD procedurally as too soon--one week is not enough. If not fixed/cleaned/notabled by 10/31, relist with prejudice. · XP · 02:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Wow, I'm a total goof. I didn't realize it had only been one week. I'll withdraw my nomination until 10/31 per XP. Danny Lilithborne 02:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I hope you'll note that fact on AN/I. --Aaron 02:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Are you going to close it? I can't do it without risking a block. And if you don't do it, another admin will follow it through well before 10/31. --Aaron 02:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Almost every declarative sentence is now cited to a newspaper, with a quotation included. More are available if anyone thinks they would be useful. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. The article is now perfectly sourced and notability is established, rendering this nomination moot. wikipediatrix 05:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Nom has asked on WP:ANI for some admin to come over here and close this as a keep; we're just waiting for one of them to get around to it. --Aaron 05:49, 4 October 2006 (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.