Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Kelso

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 speedy keep. No valid reason for deletion given and possible bad-faith spa nom. MER-C 08:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Kelso

This is an attack article. Stratherian 05:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC) — Stratherian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. From what I can see, there's at least one source with editorial oversight which talks specifically about him and his group. Anyone who has an issue with Wikipedia's "left-wing bias" is free to migrate to Conservapedia instead. Bi 05:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't encourage people to contribute to or read that overtly bias joke. Seriously, we don't want to actually drive away all the conservatives to there in the interest of keeping multiple points of view around or something. - Arch NME 16:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, it's not an attack article. John Reaves (talk) 05:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep I see nothing whatsoever that makes it an attack article, and no detectable bias. I do not think this article in particular has a left wing bias, and I do not think WP does in general. Various articles may have a political bias, in any direction.DGG 05:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, there's a couple of easily fixable POV nuances like how "White nationalist" is put in scare quotes, but it's far from an "attack article" and the guy seems to meet notability requirements. I smell a WP:POINT. Krimpet 05:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination. CJCurrie 05:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep for reasons listed above, plus take a look at some of the nominator's other AfD nominations. I don't think the nominator properly understands the different kinds of deletion and deletion criteria. I had to remove a speedy delete template from an article (namely Alex Kulbashian)that wasn't anywhere near speedy deletion criteria. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Clearly not an attack article. AnnieHall 06:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Bad-faith nomination; article is clearly not an 'attack'. Give us a break with this. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Bad faith nom; clearly meets notability reqs. SkierRMH 08:43, 5 March 2007 (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.