75:
to delete in itself (If there are issues with the content, then we fix them with NPOV editing.).There were no other concerns (other than "its problematic"), and the remainder of the !votes agree that the subject of the article is notable. So I see no reason to wait for an admin to close this debate, as I do not think there is sufficient reason to delete
830:
today I ask that the closing administrator explain how he/she has applied the appropriate ruling in the
Footnoted quotes ruling which I understand from the arbitrators' response is the relevant ruling. During this AfD we have now had two attempts to reinclude disputed material that was removed on BLP
321:
This guy shows up in hundreds of news stories. Google his name and it shows up 9,000 times, and this number is rapidly growing. Just because his existence is an embarassment to people does not make this a coatrack article. The
Knowledge entry on Jerimiah Wright is quite lengthy and I don't see you
74:
The article has significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion. Many of the editors involved in the discussion have either argued against the application of one event, or expanded the article to show how it does not apply, coupled with proper sourcing. Likewise, coatrack is not a reason
573:
Comment on the content? Didn't you just say above "The creator of this article rushed to the Sarah Palin talk page immediately afterwards to push this crap. That was the only purpose with this article"? From what I see of this page, it is factual, notable, and well sourced. The page seems mostly
670:
that have no bearing on the notability of the article's subject. The latter is not in question, given the reams of significant coverage of this individual availabe through a cursory Google News search. Stub, balance, protect if you must, but do not be so hysterical as to delete.
367:, and he seems to be prominently featured in a number of that community's materials. The current article doesn't reflect any of that (it's all Palin-related sources), but that's a reason to improve the article. I've made a start at doing so, based mainly on
540:
COATRACK is not a wikipedia policy and not a valid reason to delete (merely an essay). Notability appears to have been established in the news. Suspect bad faith nom by Kelly who has been previously warned for his POV edits regarding Sarah Palin.
452:
The fact that it was created for non-good-faith reasons doesn't imply that a different article shouldn't appear at the same title (it's been substantially rewritten since the initial contribution, with almost all the Palin material removed).
363:; this guys' been on the news on and off for a decade or so, and has had some full-length biopics in mainstream media sources. His story's reasonably well-known in a sub-section of the U.S. evangelical community that believes in the idea of
437:
You're kidding, right? The creator of this article rushed to the Sarah Palin talk page immediately afterwards to push this crap. That was the only purpose with this article. I'm taking this straight to DRV if this is kept.
400:; it only mentions Palin in one short NPOV sentence sourced from two mainstream media sources. Inevitably the mainstream sources focus on his ties with Palin, so the real question is: should be this be moved to
814:
during its AFD. The conclusion now seems obvious - the problem now will be keeping inappropriate coatracking out of the article. I wish I had more faith in our editors about this...
160:
492:
523:
holds water. We have multiple reliable sources talking about the man. That the more recent coverage has been about possible connections to Palin doesn't alter that situation.
242:
I've asked the arbitrators for clarification and though I still don't believe this passes BLP the opposition to that point of view is now so massive that I withdraw my !vote.
574:
about the guy himself. not Sarah Palin. Plus this content works much better here than on the tightly controlled Sarah Palin page. COATRACK is therefore an invalid argument.--
807:(all intervening edits by this editor), I certainly understand why this article was nominated for deletion. I think this is a good rescue by him, comparable to my rescue
56:
the only two delete !votes because of the presumption that this article should be speedied (speedy is not applicable here, and this is specifically why I've ignored it).
340:
which explains why making reference to another poor article isn't considered a valid argument here. Secondly, if you feel that an article should be deleted,
379:
of witch-hunting by other people and disagreeing with it; he himself supports hunting witches, which is his main theological position and claim to fame. --
827:
773:
641:
609:
127:
122:
131:
17:
114:
736:, I honestly don't see the "only one event" this person is notable for. And I don't see any BLP issues that would require
595:
for a little while at least. It's only two days old, so let's give it more time and see if anything develops. Regards.
224:
Coatrack and thinly disguised BLP violation. This really ought to be speedied because this totally crosses the line.
872:
836:
564:
472:
443:
247:
229:
36:
871:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
327:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
408:
420:
had a section or sub-article detailing some of the more prominent modern-day claims, it'd fit well there. --
349:
307:
288:
857:
840:
832:
818:
799:
795:
780:
767:
749:
727:
698:
677:
648:
635:
616:
603:
583:
568:
560:
550:
532:
510:
476:
468:
462:
447:
439:
429:
411:
388:
353:
331:
311:
292:
270:
251:
243:
233:
225:
213:
195:
96:
68:
416:
I'd be okay with merging it in somewhere, but there doesn't currently seem to be a good place for it. If
405:
579:
546:
505:
209:
344:
explains how. Thirdly, you might want to change your talk link as I've explained on your talk page.
745:
694:
672:
262:
707:
667:
663:
458:
425:
397:
384:
266:
172:
118:
64:
791:
760:
628:
624:
596:
528:
417:
364:
91:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
575:
542:
499:
853:
520:
375:. I don't think the witch-hunt claims raise BLP problems, since it's not as if he's being
280:
205:
168:
60:
741:
690:
686:
49:
811:
737:
659:
556:
519:
Has been in the news over the course of a decade for multiple events, so no claim of
454:
421:
380:
341:
337:
323:
176:
110:
102:
80:
53:
815:
524:
467:
Like I said I'm taking this to DRV if this is not deleted so none of that matters.
85:
148:
831:
grounds so I believe this deserves more than a simple counting of votes. Thanks,
368:
345:
303:
284:
184:
849:
188:
689:; a Google News search clearly demonstrates the notability of the subject. --
401:
848:
He is noteworthy. Coatrack issues can be dealt with in other ways.--
865:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
790:
don't know what it looked like before, but looks great now!--
302:
as the article has been improved. Still very coatrackish.
808:
805:
155:
144:
140:
136:
175:. The witch-hunt claims are extremely problematic per
183:) which is based on a claim that Muthee appeared at
59:
The deletion nomination only mentions two concerns;
826:Per the response I got from the arbitrators on my
71:in breaking down my rationale for closing as keep.
493:list of Living people-related deletion discussions
261:Pretty much the definition of a coatrack article.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
875:). No further edits should be made to this page.
658:: delete arguments seem irrelevant, focusing on
627:! What do you guys think of it now? :) Regards.
559:? Also, comment on content, not the nominator.
396:per Delirium. Article seems balanced and not
179:, and there's only a single reliable source (
8:
435:Article seems balanced and not WP:COATRACK
204:This is pretty much a speedy in disguise.
740:in order to fix the supposed problems. --
491:: This debate has been included in the
759:I've been working on it. :) Regards.
7:
404:? His bio is still pretty sketchy.
24:
322:guys trying to stop that story.
804:Looking at FangedFaerie's work
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
858:02:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
841:20:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
819:20:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
800:04:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
781:03:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
750:02:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
728:20:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
699:16:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
678:14:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
649:01:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
617:06:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
584:03:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
569:03:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
551:23:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
533:19:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
511:18:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
477:03:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
463:22:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
448:07:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
430:00:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
412:00:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
389:23:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
354:22:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
332:21:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
312:08:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
293:20:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
271:19:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
252:13:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
234:17:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
214:17:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
196:16:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
97:02:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
1:
892:
828:request for clarification
371:Christian Science Monitor
868:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
50:the consensus to do so
824:Comment to the closer
666:etc., which are mere
336:Firstly, please see
67:and I will oblige
779:
723:
647:
615:
513:
496:
418:spiritual warfare
365:spiritual warfare
44:The result was
883:
870:
776:
770:
765:
763:
721:
715:
710:
675:
644:
638:
633:
631:
612:
606:
601:
599:
508:
502:
497:
487:
193:
158:
152:
134:
94:
88:
34:
891:
890:
886:
885:
884:
882:
881:
880:
879:
873:deletion review
866:
774:
768:
761:
719:
713:
706:per Skomorokh.
673:
642:
636:
629:
610:
604:
597:
506:
500:
189:
154:
125:
109:
106:
92:
86:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
889:
887:
878:
877:
861:
860:
843:
821:
802:
784:
783:
757:That's because
753:
752:
731:
701:
687:User:Skomorokh
680:
652:
651:
620:
619:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
555:Ever heard of
535:
514:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
432:
391:
358:
357:
356:
316:
315:
314:
300:very weak keep
273:
256:
255:
254:
221:Speedy delete'
216:
181:The Daily Mail
165:
164:
105:
100:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
888:
876:
874:
869:
863:
862:
859:
855:
851:
847:
844:
842:
838:
834:
829:
825:
822:
820:
817:
813:
812:Otis Moss III
809:
806:
803:
801:
797:
793:
792:Paul McDonald
789:
786:
785:
782:
777:
771:
764:
758:
755:
754:
751:
747:
743:
739:
735:
732:
730:
729:
725:
724:
722:
716:
705:
702:
700:
696:
692:
688:
684:
681:
679:
676:
674:the skomorokh
669:
665:
662:-compliance,
661:
657:
654:
653:
650:
645:
639:
632:
626:
622:
621:
618:
613:
607:
600:
594:
591:
585:
581:
577:
572:
571:
570:
566:
562:
558:
554:
553:
552:
548:
544:
539:
536:
534:
530:
526:
522:
518:
515:
512:
509:
503:
494:
490:
486:
478:
474:
470:
466:
465:
464:
460:
456:
451:
450:
449:
445:
441:
436:
433:
431:
427:
423:
419:
415:
414:
413:
410:
407:
403:
399:
395:
392:
390:
386:
382:
378:
374:
372:
366:
362:
359:
355:
351:
347:
343:
339:
335:
334:
333:
329:
325:
320:
317:
313:
309:
305:
301:
297:
296:
295:
294:
290:
286:
282:
278:
274:
272:
268:
264:
260:
259:Speedy delete
257:
253:
249:
245:
241:
237:
236:
235:
231:
227:
223:
222:
217:
215:
211:
207:
203:
200:
199:
198:
197:
194:
192:
186:
182:
178:
174:
170:
162:
157:
150:
146:
142:
138:
133:
129:
124:
120:
116:
112:
111:Thomas Muthee
108:
107:
104:
103:Thomas Muthee
101:
99:
98:
95:
90:
89:
82:
78:
72:
70:
66:
62:
57:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
867:
864:
845:
833:EconomicsGuy
823:
787:
762:FangedFaerie
756:
733:
726:
717:
711:
709:
703:
682:
655:
630:FangedFaerie
598:FangedFaerie
592:
561:EconomicsGuy
537:
516:
488:
469:EconomicsGuy
440:EconomicsGuy
434:
393:
376:
370:
360:
318:
299:
298:Changing to
276:
275:
258:
244:EconomicsGuy
239:
238:Changing to
226:EconomicsGuy
220:
219:
201:
190:
180:
166:
84:
77:at this time
76:
73:
69:EconomicsGuy
58:
45:
43:
31:
28:
668:WP:PROBLEMS
664:WP:COATRACK
623:Well, I've
576:Cdogsimmons
543:Cdogsimmons
501:Fabrictramp
398:WP:COATRACK
187:'s church.
185:Sarah Palin
173:WP:COATRACK
167:Delete per
507:talk to me
369:this 1999
206:Hobartimus
742:Pixelface
691:Saforrest
625:been bold
394:Weak keep
361:Weak keep
738:deletion
521:WP:BLP1E
455:Delirium
422:Delirium
402:wikinews
381:Delirium
324:Kryzadmz
281:WP:BLP1E
263:Sashaman
169:WP:BLP1E
161:View log
65:Coatrack
816:GRBerry
685:as per
525:JoshuaZ
377:accused
373:article
240:neutral
128:protect
123:history
54:ignored
52:. I've
660:WP:BLP
557:WP:BLP
346:Stifle
342:WP:DPR
338:WP:WAX
304:Stifle
285:Stifle
277:Delete
202:Delete
177:WP:BLP
156:delete
132:delete
850:scuro
775:Edits
643:Edits
611:Edits
191:Kelly
159:) – (
149:views
141:watch
137:links
61:BLP1E
16:<
854:talk
846:Keep
837:talk
796:talk
788:keep
769:Talk
746:talk
734:Keep
712:Banj
704:Keep
695:talk
683:Keep
656:Keep
637:Talk
605:Talk
593:Keep
580:talk
565:talk
547:talk
538:Keep
529:talk
517:keep
489:Note
473:talk
459:talk
444:talk
426:talk
385:talk
350:talk
328:talk
319:Save
308:talk
289:talk
279:per
267:talk
248:talk
230:talk
210:talk
171:and
145:logs
119:talk
115:edit
93:ergy
63:and
48:per
46:Keep
810:of
708:--
498:--
495:.
87:Syn
81:NAC
79:. (
856:)
839:)
798:)
772:|
748:)
720:oi
697:)
640:|
608:|
582:)
567:)
549:)
541:--
531:)
504:|
475:)
461:)
453:--
446:)
428:)
406:VG
387:)
352:)
330:)
310:)
291:)
283:.
269:)
250:)
232:)
212:)
147:|
143:|
139:|
135:|
130:|
126:|
121:|
117:|
83:)
852:(
835:(
794:(
778:)
766:(
744:(
718:b
714:e
693:(
646:)
634:(
614:)
602:(
578:(
563:(
545:(
527:(
471:(
457:(
442:(
424:(
409:☎
383:(
348:(
326:(
306:(
287:(
265:(
246:(
228:(
218:'
208:(
163:)
153:(
151:)
113:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.