Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Freeman

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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Freeman

Article prodded without comment so I am moving here. Also, the article makes some pretty valid claims to notability. I would have to vote Keep. James084 02:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: Obviously notable. AfD is only for contested deletions. If it was prodded without a reason they you are under no obligation to move it here. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 02:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• There is by all evidence one persistent vandal who keeps blanking it without explaining themselves. Given the subject matter, possibly (but not clearly known to be) connected to the subject of the article. There's nothing apparently wrong with the article (it's critical, but not abusively non neutral point of view). It appears to meet bio standards for living (at least slightly) notable people. An AfD of any sort is the wrong way to deal with this. I recommend you just close this AfD down; if the vandal keeps it up, sanctions can be applied there. Georgewilliamherbert 02:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Week keep and cleanup. --Aaron 03:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Notable. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Expand, clean, cite reserach etc... pschemp | talk 06:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable, expand, and cleanup. --Terence Ong 08:50, 22 February 2006
• Keep, Clean Up and Expand —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:KnowitallWiki (talk • contribs)
• Delete or change The author has NO proof of their alligations and accusations. This IS a biased article. I have previously edited biased info out, and it always gets edited right back in. If the biased comments were left out, there would be no problem with this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Aubbit (talk • contribs)
• Keep per others. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep but by no meansa shoo-in - I'd say AfD was the right call here. Subject is locally controversial, but wider notability is open to question. Needs better citations, I think. Just zis Guy you know? 10:53, 23 February 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.