Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rusty Harding

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 delete - rewrite acknowledged, but it doesn't appear to address the concerns of the 'delete's. Flowerparty■ 23:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rusty Harding

I can't make up my mind whether to speedy this one as an attack or whether to flag it for extreme cleanup to remove the POV. The answer, I guess, hinges on whether the guy is thought notable. If he is, then the crap about child support needs to go (I've left it so you can see what I mean). Just zis Guy you know? 18:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Appears notable. The child support thing is covered in the article Glenn, and could be mentioned briefly here but the level of detail is excessive. The rest of the article badly needs sources and cleanup. Powers 19:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm not seeing it. — Mar. 29, '06 [06:56] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

• Re-direct to Glenn. ---- No Guru 20:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Seriously? I can't imagine anyone searching for the boomerang designer would be interested in a son who disclaims all relationship to him and has nothing to do with boomerangs. Powers 21:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I got mixed up, I thought both articles were about the same person. I'm going to have to abstain. I guess he might be notable within the boomerang community but I'm not sure that warrants an article. No Guru 21:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Sorry, I just don't get how this guy's notable. Fagstein 05:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • LtPowers edits noted. I'll change my vote when someone introduces evidence of notability. Fagstein 18:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as attack page. Let the boomerangers celebrate him in their own space. -- Simon Cursitor 07:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've cleaned up the article and removed "attack" portions of it, so that we can see what's left. It's still a stub, and it badly needs sources, but it's no longer an "attack page". Powers 13:20, 30 March 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.