Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sue Schilling
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 Keep. SynergeticMaggot 00:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sue Schilling
No consensus was reached on the blanket nomination here, so relisting individually. County political offices do not pass WP:BIO, and no assertion of notability beyond council membership had been made. Article has seen very little activity since it's creation in March. DarkAudit 17:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep - I had stepped away from my computer for lunch only to see that during my brief break, the article had reached a no consensus for an AfD, and that it was being resubmitted for deletion, all within a span of 46 minutes. While I will do my best to assume good faith, it is very hard to accept that this is not just another attempt to undo an AfD that just failed. Can I politely suggest that this AfD be withdrawn and that a period of time — say several weeks or a few months — be allowed after the rejected AfD to allow the article sufficient time to be improved to allow the article to better meet the WP:BIO concerns. Alansohn 17:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep 46 minutes is not even close to being long enough to put back on AFD. --Edgelord 19:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment No effort was made to improve the article since March, even after it was placed in AfD. This was not a failed AfD, as much as a confused one that was subject to much wikilawyering. Even the one article that was kept is still badly in need of expanding. It wasn't touched during the discussion, either. DarkAudit 20:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - In addition to addressing the other 4,500 articles on my watchlist, and dealing with this and other AfD's, I have not had the opportunity to improve these articles. I had hoped to do so after the AfD was complete, but I was not around in the 46 minute period before your new AfD was created. I had attempted to contact the author of the article by leaving a message on his talk page, which went unanswered, there was no email address available and the user's last edit was in March 2006. I will as respectfully as possible ask yet one more time for a simple demonstration of good faith by requesting that this AfD be withdrawn to allow sufficient time to address the concerns you have raised and bring it up to your standards. Alansohn 21:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The standard are Wikipedia's, not mine. It's not as if I nominated the article for speedy deletion. The article has already had more than enough time to be brought up to standards, but it wasn't done. It wasn't done for five months. The purpose of an AfD is to use that time to fix an article, not after. There still has been no claim of notability outside of board membership, which does not meet the standards of WP:BIO. The claim during the previous AfD was that the standards didn't exist. DarkAudit 16:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - In addition to addressing the other 4,500 articles on my watchlist, and dealing with this and other AfD's, I have not had the opportunity to improve these articles. I had hoped to do so after the AfD was complete, but I was not around in the 46 minute period before your new AfD was created. I had attempted to contact the author of the article by leaving a message on his talk page, which went unanswered, there was no email address available and the user's last edit was in March 2006. I will as respectfully as possible ask yet one more time for a simple demonstration of good faith by requesting that this AfD be withdrawn to allow sufficient time to address the concerns you have raised and bring it up to your standards. Alansohn 21:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Allow some time for possible expansion before re-nomination. Catchpole 21:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Kelly (Freeholder), the result of which was keep. Accurizer 21:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment That is not the article under discussion. DarkAudit 23:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, Indeed; if the original nomination of this article was bundled with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Kelly (Freeholder) instead of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlantic County Board of Chosen Freeholders, it is more than likely that the outcome of the previous discussion for this article would have been "keep" instead of "no consensus". In any event, good editors who are part of a WikiProject intend to expand this article and deserve a reasonable period of time to do so. This renom also does not seem consistent with the spirit of Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Nominating an article for deletion, which states: "In general, although there is no strict policy or consensus for a specific time between nominations, articles that have survived a nomination for deletion should not be immediately renominated." Accurizer 13:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment That is not the article under discussion. DarkAudit 23:52, 15 August 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.
