Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sam Sloan

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Nomination withdrawn. – Ryan Delaney ^talk 10:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Sloan

POV Billbrock 18:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Sloan probably merits entry based on winning the Supreme Court case, but the second paragraph of the 12 Aug 2005 article is at a risible distance from NPOV. Billbrock 18:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy keep because NPOV is not a valid criteria for deletion; it is a criteria for editing the page. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:40, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

• • Actually, POV is a valid criterion for deletion when the POV of the entire article is skewed. This is not quite a vanity entry, but it comes awfully close. No mention is made of Sloan's felony conviction. However, I agree that a complete rewrite would be an acceptable fix. Billbrock 00:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Note to admin - I initiated the VfD, and now agree that neutrality dispute is more appropriate. Agree with speedy keep. Billbrock 17:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I vote to keep.

The POV issues can be easily cleaned up by a 3rd party. His Supreme Court victory alone merits a wiki. Nagaflas 04:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Then could we get someone (obviously not me) to take a crack at it? Billbrock 17:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Um, no. We do not need articles on the tens of thousands of attorneys who have argued before the SCOTUS. Just because you have argued (or won) there does not make you notable. →Raul654 16:29, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I believe this to be a vanity page. Sloan's claims to fame are disputed to be quite spurious according to an extensive number of people--Knucmo2 18:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• [Keep] You don't understand. He is the last NON-JURIST to win a case before the Supreme Court. That is why he is noteworthy. Nagaflas 19:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Boils down to semantics. Does anyone disagree that this article fails NPOV? Doesn't matter whether this is remedied with a rewrite, or with delete & eventual replacement. Just needs to be remedied. Billbrock 17:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Template:Sofixit CanadianCaesar 20:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Normally I would fix it, but I've recently been involved in a rather public dispute with Sloan (a convicted felon, a pornographer, a child molester, a racist, a habitual liar....). I cannot achieve NPOV :-) Billbrock 17:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per BD2412 --malathion ^talk 21:16, 13 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.