Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warren Faidley (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. (non-admin closure) Theopolisme (talk) 00:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Faidley

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

The individual this page is about has been very insulting on other pages and has gotten a lot of negative comments from those who have saw this. He has also made a blatant attempt to raise funds based on his insults toward others in the same field of work. Many have suggested that some one ask that he be removed from Wiki. Cross Weather (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I'm not sure how complaints about a user's conduct have anything to do with whether an article is kept. Since the article has sources and doesn't appear to be spam, I don't see a reason to delete it. —C.Fred (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems like a bad faith nomination. "Behaving badly on Wikipedia" is not listed on WP:DEL-REASON. Praemonitus (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Possibly being a jack*** isn't a reason to delete a page. I haven't looked in-depth at all of the sources, but the most I can say needs altering at the moment are some POV sentences such as "This is in contrast to the majority of "storm chasers" who are, in reality, hobbyists, scientists, students, thrill-seekers and part-timers who chase seasonal events." But if that's all that needs work, that's fixable and not a deletable offense on its own. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good deal of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2013 (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.