Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott M. Rodell

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. — CharlotteWebb 06:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scott M. Rodell

Not nearly notable enough. {rubbish; Tashi James} Quite possibly a vanity page or even an autobiography.{Poorly sourced; this is a misinformed statement; Tashi James} Also poorly sourced and churlishly written.Policratus 20:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. Amongst the user's contributions the last few days was nominating a random rapper to be a featured article, trying possibly trying to speedy delete domestic violence, then turning around and nominating it for featured article (See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Domestic violence for details), and other troublesome activity. Bad faith nomination for sure, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ainu_people_2. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This rubbish was tagged for speedy delete as soon as it was written. Why do you think this is a bad faith nomination? I suggest you retract that an apologize. I'm trying to write this project up. Policratus 20:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Multiple secondary sources is good enough to meet notability guidelines. Against speedy keep, though, this is obviously not a bad faith nom. -Amarkov ^babble 00:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, subject has been the subject of multiple nontrivial sources of coverage. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 18:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the speedy keep criteria? "Has been the subject of multiple nontrivial sources of coverage" is not an allowed rationale for speedy keep. -Amarkov ^babble 00:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. Bad faith nominations intended to disrupt WP. Pavel Vozenilek 17:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per all keepers above. --Oakshade 08:06, 5 November 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.