| Revision as of 14:43, 8 November 2007 editGeo Swan (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers112,843 edits keep← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:32, 8 November 2007 edit undoCarlossuarez46 (talk | contribs)501,458 edits Closing debate; result was Withdrawn in light of LaMenta3's substantial rewrite and expansionNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" 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. '' | |||
| <!--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| The result was '''Withdrawn in light of LaMenta3's substantial rewrite and expansion'''. ] 18:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| {{ns:0|b}} | |||
| {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|b}} | |||
| :{{la|George Israel}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | :{{la|George Israel}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | ||
| Line 10: | Line 18: | ||
| *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the lists of ] and ]. </small><small>—<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 13:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)</small> | *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the lists of ] and ]. </small><small>—<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 13:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)</small> | ||
| *'''Strong keep''' -- I agree that the article looked weak at the point it was nominated for deletion. Hats off to LaMenta3 for the timely expansion. I agree with the other respondents who suggest the nominator let us down by failing to do a web search, prior to the nomination, to determine whether the topic of the article had room for expansion. Because the nominator didn't choose to spend a minute or two of due diligence, prior to nomination, they ended up wasting a lot of the time of other people. I would suggest to the nominator that they withdraw this nomination, and be less hasty with their nominations for deletion in future. ] 14:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC) | *'''Strong keep''' -- I agree that the article looked weak at the point it was nominated for deletion. Hats off to LaMenta3 for the timely expansion. I agree with the other respondents who suggest the nominator let us down by failing to do a web search, prior to the nomination, to determine whether the topic of the article had room for expansion. Because the nominator didn't choose to spend a minute or two of due diligence, prior to nomination, they ended up wasting a lot of the time of other people. I would suggest to the nominator that they withdraw this nomination, and be less hasty with their nominations for deletion in future. ] 14:43, 8 November 2007 (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> | |||
Revision as of 18:32, 8 November 2007
- 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 Withdrawn in light of LaMenta3's substantial rewrite and expansion. Carlossuarez46 18:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
George Israel
- George Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Delete unsourced article about a mayor of a mid-sized city - we don't know when or where he was born, or whether he's still alive. Any way, for those who have stated that mayors of cities over 100,000 are inherently notable - Macon's population was 97,606 in 2000 and certainly less when this dude was mayor. Carlossuarez46 23:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Stubs and unsourced articles are surmountable problems and are not a reason to delete. Further, before nominating things for AfD, please do a cursory Google search for the article topic. In under five minutes I found six fairly substantial sources which can be used to reference and expand this article. Knowledge of a subject's birthdate is not a requirement for inclusion, as some people consider that information private. However, if you care to know, George Israel is 57 or 58 (as I'm fairly certain he was born in either 1949 or 1950, though I wasn't able to find a source offhand that explicitly states that), he is currently the president of the Georgia Chamber of Commerce and is on the board of directors of YKK Group. (Fun fact: YKK is a big employer in Macon.) LaMenta3 23:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have significantly expanded and referenced the article. LaMenta3 01:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Article is sourced and asserts notability. --Goobergunch|? 12:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep -- just a cursory Google News Archive search turns 330 news items. This took all of 30 seconds and anyone can do it. Why are we even having this AfD?--A. B. 12:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the lists of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletions and Politicians-related deletions. —A. B. 13:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep -- I agree that the article looked weak at the point it was nominated for deletion. Hats off to LaMenta3 for the timely expansion. I agree with the other respondents who suggest the nominator let us down by failing to do a web search, prior to the nomination, to determine whether the topic of the article had room for expansion. Because the nominator didn't choose to spend a minute or two of due diligence, prior to nomination, they ended up wasting a lot of the time of other people. I would suggest to the nominator that they withdraw this nomination, and be less hasty with their nominations for deletion in future. Geo Swan 14:43, 8 November 2007 (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.