| Revision as of 13:51, 8 September 2006 editNagromtpc (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,969 edits remove crossing of vote, let people decide for themselves← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 06:10, 31 January 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Added missing end tags to discussion close footer to reduce Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| 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;"> | |||
| {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|B}} | |||
| :''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. '' | |||
| <!--Template:Afd top | |||
| 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 was '''keep'''. ] 07:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| Tagged for clean up since Jan., this article asserts no notablity and fails the ]. The biggest thing listed is one appearance on Nightline. ] 01:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | Tagged for clean up since Jan., this article asserts no notablity and fails the ]. The biggest thing listed is one appearance on Nightline. ] 01:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Line 14: | Line 21: | ||
| *'''Keep''' Sounds like the nom has an underlying motive here. His claim that the article is weak on notability and fails ] is what is actually weak. ] 20:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' Sounds like the nom has an underlying motive here. His claim that the article is weak on notability and fails ] is what is actually weak. ] 20:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Comment:''' This is Cormedan's second ever edit, and he has not made one since. Despite his second edit he already knows how to sign his name and vote in a AfD.] 02:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | *'''Comment:''' This is Cormedan's second ever edit, and he has not made one since. Despite his second edit he already knows how to sign his name and vote in a AfD.] 02:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Speedy Keep''' per all above. This is looking like ] ] 22:10, 8 September 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.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> | |||
Latest revision as of 06:10, 31 January 2022
- 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Darrell Bock
Tagged for clean up since Jan., this article asserts no notablity and fails the The Professor Test. The biggest thing listed is one appearance on Nightline. Arbusto 01:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Please look at the list of books and the reviews. The book list is incomplete; more are listed at http://catalog.loc.gov/ --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Books published by Christian publishers such as Baker and Nelson aren't a big deal. The professor test needs facts like academic notablity, sales, etc. Arbusto 04:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Breaking the Da Vinci Code was a New York Times Bestseller. --Brianyoumans 05:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Source it and add it to the article then. Arbusto 05:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Well known Evangelical author. Despite the nom's assetion, Baker and Nelson are well known and legitimate publishers. There is a disturbing theme to this and other nominations being brought forth by the nom. 205.157.110.11 07:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: This "anon" user knows how to sign and use his only edits in the last day to vote for four afds- all which happened to be mine, and all that are created by Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs) who is banned. Arbusto 10:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, if only just for his bestseller, Breaking the Da Vinci Code, which was sold world-wide. Also, need for cleanup is NOT a reason for deletion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, meets WP:BIO as an author.--Isotope23 15:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The article looks fine to me, and passes the WP:BIO test. RFerreira 18:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I'd say being a New York Times bestselling author is a pretty strong indication of notability. -Elmer Clark 22:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Sounds like the nom has an underlying motive here. His claim that the article is weak on notability and fails The Professor Test is what is actually weak. Cormedan 20:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: This is Cormedan's second ever edit, and he has not made one since. Despite his second edit he already knows how to sign his name and vote in a AfD.Arbusto 02:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep per all above. This is looking like WP:SNOW Agne 22:10, 8 September 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.