Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew nagorski

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 Keep per improvements made to article. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew nagorski

Andrew nagorski (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

1. Non notable as per WP:BIO 2. No "secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" (WP:BIO) —Visor (talk · contribs) 20:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• • After copyedit and referencing I vote for Keep. —Visor (talk · contribs) 23:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I think he may be notable, but the article is a mess and references are weak. I will be awaiting the discussion and eventual article's improvement before casting my vote.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for now. The only thing missing are the sources and I think I can get them added in pretty easily. He is notable is it can be sourced. JodyB _talk 20:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, a senior editor of an internationally-distributed magazine is notable. --Dhartung | Talk 21:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It looks like a lot of work is happening on this article on a notable editor and author. —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - notability now clearly established. Newyorkbrad 23:56, 1 June 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.