Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/English Teachers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was Keep (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded and then de-prodded by User: Monicasdude. This documentary has no IMDb entry, leading me to doubt its notability and verifiability. Delete --Hetar 18:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep nomination bordering on bad faith, since the explanation here is different than the same nominator's prod comments. And would it kill him to do a Google search? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Obviously notable as award-winning television series. Can we just close this now? Monicasdude 18:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What? a bad faith nomination because my prod comments were different than my AfD comments? I am not aware of any Wikipedia policy stating that these have to be exactly the same. My original prod comment was, "does not meet notability requirements." Of course, my prod was promptly removed because you said that it did, "not indicate why TV documentary series would be nonnotable." So now, when I explain why I think its nn, you accuse me of a bad faith nomination? --Hetar 18:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Both of you, deep breaths: assumptions of good faith all round will help everyone. Thanks. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 18:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. My experience has been that when the AfD nominator names the editor who object to a prod or speedy listing before discussing the reasons for the nomination, it's a personal deal, not related to the appropriateness of the article. And IMDB isn't exactly where one would expect to find info on Canadian TV documentaries. If the nominator had assumed a minimum of good faith to begin with, he'd have done more than a superficial check; nothing about the article indicated hoax or negligibility. Monicasdude 18:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sourcing provided and perhaps consider adding those sources to the article to prevent future AfD. No need for speedy unless nom wants to withdraw or it's a very obvious all keep opinion... and per Redvers, looks like some people need a hug.--Isotope23 19:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep obviously the article needs expanding, but notability seems clear. Gwernol 20:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand, of course. Samaritan 07:45, 7 April 2006 (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.