| Revision as of 16:37, 28 February 2006 editWeregerbil (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,447 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:38, 28 February 2006 edit undoFys (talk | contribs)14,706 edits →[]: close: speedy keepNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| :''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. '' | |||
| <!-- | |||
| Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> | |||
| The result of the debate was '''speedy keep'''. ] | ] 16:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| Non-notable; just another baseless litigant in this lawsuit-crazed culture {{unsigned2|16:16, 28 February 2006|Jimmy Lee Wallace}} | Non-notable; just another baseless litigant in this lawsuit-crazed culture {{unsigned2|16:16, 28 February 2006|Jimmy Lee Wallace}} | ||
| Line 5: | Line 11: | ||
| *'''Keep'''. I didn't recognize the name, but certainly the case was notable and thus warrants an article. -] 16:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC) | *'''Keep'''. I didn't recognize the name, but certainly the case was notable and thus warrants an article. -] 16:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Speedy keep''' per ]. Bad faith AfD nomination. ] 16:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC) | *'''Speedy keep''' per ]. Bad faith AfD nomination. ] 16:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.</div> | |||
Revision as of 16:38, 28 February 2006
- 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 speedy keep. David | Talk 16:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Michael_Newdow
Non-notable; just another baseless litigant in this lawsuit-crazed culture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy Lee Wallace (talk • contribs) 16:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. He has appeared multiple times on multiple news networks, and his various legal cases always make headlines. When his Pledge of Allegiance case was ruled in his favor by the Court of Appeals, the U.S. Congress and President Bush immediately responded. Whether or not his claims are baseless is for the courts to decide; if he were the generic lawsuit-crazed person this nomination implies, he wouldn't be on his way to argue before the Supreme Court for the second time. --Maxamegalon2000 16:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep, nom is Gastrich noming notable atheists again. KillerChihuahua 16:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I didn't recognize the name, but certainly the case was notable and thus warrants an article. -Jcbarr 16:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per KillerChihuahua. Bad faith AfD nomination. Weregerbil 16:37, 28 February 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.