Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J.J. Rouse (2nd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 08:18, 10 February 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 08:18, 10 February 2022 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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 Procedural keep. If you disagree with the result of an immediately prior AfD, seek Deletion review. Jclemens (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- J.J. Rouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Second nomination, first appeared to be a bit of a mess. Reason for nomination - there is nothing here, or in the 'sources' found in the first nomination which haven't been added, that amounts to significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Due to that the subject fails WP:BIO Nuttah (talk) 11:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. First, this is a very poorly-written article. If I can get past that, I still am not able to tell why this person is notable. Timneu22 (talk) 12:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous AFD was closed 2 weeks ago. There should be signficiant time between nominations. -= Mgm|(talk) 16:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close as Keep Previous AFD is muvch too recent. The article needs a lot of work, but that implies tagging it not deleting it. The subject appeared to be a significant leader in his denomination in Canada, but the problem is that the author has gone away and left it unfinished. Possibly because of some one putting in a premature AFD nomination. This is very off-putting to new well-meaning editors. I am not sure if that is the case here. I added this article to my watchlist so that I could observe how it developed and act as a critical commentator. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Peterkingiron (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.