| Revision as of 15:43, 7 March 2006 view source192.197.82.153 (talk) vote delete← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:51, 7 March 2006 view source Wiederaufbau (talk | contribs)70 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| Delete] 15:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC) | Delete] 15:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Speedy Keep'''. This second nomination comes just 3 days after the first and is part of ongoing content dispute, not a valid AfD nomination. ] 15:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:51, 7 March 2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rachel_Marsden2
The "Speedy Keep" decision was a blatant attamept to prevent discussion. This article is libelous and leaves Misplaced Pages open to a lawsuit. It is am attempt to smear the subject. It is filled with POV, slected facts. Please read "talk" page before voting to see the objections raised. Several Canadian Misplaced Pages editors refuse to do anything to restrain the stalking of the subject of this article by the authors Isotelus 12:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC) Delete
One of the worst articles on Misplaced Pages. Point of view is so blatant and negative that it's beyond fixing and a whole new article is needed. Delete Mark Bourrie 12:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
My name is Rachel Marsden--the person this article is about. It is so incredibly wrong, biased and libelous that I have attempted to contact Misplaced Pages founder Jim Wales personally, by phone, to no avail. I don't threaten people with legal action, but would suggest that an article like this does Misplaced Pages a real disservice and has certainly destroyed its credibility in my view, as a working journalist. Even the slightest attempt at fairness--if not accuracy--would have been appreciated. Regards, Rachel Marsden, 7 March 2006
Delete192.197.82.153 15:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. This second nomination comes just 3 days after the first and is part of ongoing content dispute, not a valid AfD nomination. Wiederaufbau 15:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)