Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Seaward (2nd nomination)

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. Lack of a valid deletion rationale (WP:NTEMP). (I note, however, that since consensus can change, in a closer argument I might have hoped for specific discussions of sources and how they relate to specific notability guidelines from both sides.) joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William Seaward

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AfD four years ago on notability grounds was a weak keep, but the subject seems to have vanished since then. Refs all from a burst of activity in 2008. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources tells me notable. also WP:GNG--BabbaQ (talk) 12:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

which sources? Did you actually look at them? LibStar (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If he was notable four years ago, the fact that he hasn't become more notable in the interim isn't a reason to delete. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability, once established, does not vanish simply because it has not continued. Once acknowledged and sourced, we do not expect nor demand ongoing coverage or continued notability ad-infinitum. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree, if there are no new sources, doesn't mean that this article needs to be deleted. Jared-Phill (talk) 11:45, 27 April 2012 (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.