Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Gardner (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 keep. W.marsh 22:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joshua Gardner

Joshua Gardner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

An article on an utterly unnotable news story which was only kept because of the pointless Wikipedia navel gazing that happens on here, the same applies to the Essjay asininity. - hahnchen 18:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, the nominator is completely correct here - this guy isn't notable in any way, there are thousands of criminals out there and they're frankly not important enough to have an article. 86.137.121.170 18:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Wicked-strong delete, hundreds of people misrepresent themselves AND hundreds of sick people molest teens. I say that this be deleted immediately. JONJONBT^{Talk to me!} 18:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Given the previous "keep" result, doing this would probably open up a hurricane of piss. - hahnchen 18:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• keep as essjay does not state which specific criteria this fails. also, hurricane of piss is probably the funniest thing i've heard in a really really long time. Barsportsunlimited 18:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I don't see any reason to delete this, given the presence of several reliable sources... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. A bit light on importance, but the international media coverage indicates notability. --Dhartung | Talk 19:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• keep though possible remove some details. He was 18 at the time of the sex offense, and 22 at the time of the imposture, so he is not a minor. DGG 01:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the subject is a notable part of Wikipedia history and has been covered by multiple non-trivial reliable sources. bbx 09:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep subject of a scandal that recieved heavy media coverage.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and move into a section with Wikipedia related articles (if we have something like that). It's a great example of the abuse of Wikipedia, which can teach a valuable lesson to editors. It is notable in this regard, but may be not outside the context of Wikipedia. I was participating in debates with others though, where the issue of people not double checking for themselves and believing what they read, at Wikipedia and elsewhere was a big part of the discussion. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 20:50, 11 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.