Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longo (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Longo

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

Delete - Completely unreferenced, stands only on original research and has been marked for such (and for cleanup), with no attempt having been made at remedying the issue, since December 2006. Since original AfD nom ended in no consensus, no attempt has been made whatsoever to add sources or clean up the article. If there were any sourced material in the article, we could keep it and delete the rest, but there are no sources at all. Finally, the article fails to establish notability. Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 05:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. - I've changed my vote due to the improvements made since the nomination. Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 04:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - A list of external links to news stories at the bottom do not qualify as reliable sources. /Blaxthos 11:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable subject in cultural studies, in law enforcement and frequently occuring in newsreports (see Gov. page for City of Long Beach). Also, an important subject in schools where educators combat gang recruitment and gang violence. Inline citations can easily be collected from the the Los Angeles City Council report, by Advancement Project Los Angeles, if inline citations are a requirement for the article's existence. Needs attention, not deletion. Pia 19:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The article has needed "attention" for nine months now. Very little, if anything, has been done to fix it since the original research tag was placed on the page in December. How much longer should we wait for "attention"? If no one will put some effort into demonstrating reliable sources, then the article cannot stand solely on original research and must be deleted. Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 19:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, if Fullmetal has such energy to invest in trying to delete the article, it might be better if he channelled his energy in actually doing some research to improve the article.--Schonken 10:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The nomination seems to be based on personal antipathy. Fullmetal could have mended the problems since the last time he nominated it.--Schonken 10:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - My time and energy are my business, and I don't have to improve an article that I have no interest in editing and which I feel isn't notable enough for an encyclopedia. If you look at my edit history, you will see that I do not seek to delete articles out of dislike, but rather because that is what I feel is best for Wikipedia. Please be civil. Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 15:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Of course, editing is voluntary and people's personal preferences are irrelevant here. In addition, this discussion about a lack of effort has now become moot: the article appears to have been edited already since the nomination, and is now amply sourced (with footnotes), and thus currently satisfies the WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NOTABILITY criteria. Pia 19:01, 17 September 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.