Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marguerite Knight
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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The result was Withdrawn with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Marguerite Knight
nn unsourced Ziggy Sawdust 15:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep — "Unsourced" does not mean "unsourcable." That an article does not have any sources listed is not a valid reason to delete; rather, the correct solution is to find sources. Just because you're not willing to do so yourself--just because you're more interested in deleting new articles and driving away new contributors just because you've never heard of the subject and would rather mindlessly and lazily click a button than actually do some real, meaningful, constructive work--doesn't mean you should try to make it impossible for others to do so as well. Your activities over the last couple of days are a real problem; you are going WAY overboard with Twinkle. I suggest you stop for awhile and reconsider whether or not you're doing any actual good. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep From the same site in the other AFD. [[1]]. This article got 180 seconds, with a litle mote time further references are likely available.
- Keep per Kurt Weber. See similar argument wrt Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Devereux-Rochester. Julesn84 (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep because of Presidential Medal of Freedom, OBE, and Croix de Guerre listed at [2].--Michael WhiteT·C 16:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: There's not a lot on which I agree with Kurt, but he's dead on accurate here. Exactly what fact checking could the nom have done in less than 180 seconds? Nom has already been blocked for using a bot to indiscriminately speedy and AfD, and it doesn't seem to have made much of an impression. I'm almost comfortable with declaring this a bad faith nomination. RGTraynor 16:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Kurt Weber and RGTraynor. I'm not sure if this is bad faith or ignorance, but the end result will be the same if this keeps up. Please go read WP:BEFORE before someone blocks you for disruption. Bfigura (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Withdraw this entire mess because I was a moron to nom it in the first place Ziggy Sawdust 18:09, 22 April 2008 (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.
