Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Starbird
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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. - Daniel Bryant 10:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] George Starbird
Contested deletion. A local politician, no other claim for notability made and no references/source Nuttah68 15:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable, and no references, making this a unnessasary amountof space that should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hiddenhearts (talk • contribs) 15:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
- Delete has not been sourced and/or referenced since creation and I suspect none will be forthcoming Alf photoman 21:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 11:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- STRONG KEEP. "Local politician"? How about "mayor of the 10th largest city in the United States". Compare the other articles from List of mayors of San Jose, California. Starbird didn't have an article until now and no Google hits, because, well, he died before Google and teh internets. Lots of easily verifiable reliable facts if you use the right sources (e.g. newsbank). I've expanded the article and added references. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-22 11:38Z
- Keep As per Quarl Jules1975 11:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - multiple references demonstrate that he has adequate coverage in third-party sources. San Jose is also a sufficiently major city as to make him inherently notable. Walton monarchist89 13:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, mayor of large US city. NawlinWiki 13:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a good example of why you need to take at least five minutes for basic research when you think about putting something on AFD. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep based on Quarls excellent arguments. Seeing as the article now contains sources, it's no longer unverified either. - Mgm|(talk) 09:13, 23 February 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.
