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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Bigelow, IV[edit]

This article was prodded after I declined a speedy a while back. Since my declining the speedy obviously means the deletion is not non-controversial, I'm writing this procedural nomination so the article is properly discussed. The person who prodded it said: "No citations, not particularly notable at that age". Based on the content of the article, I believe references can be added. And with Connie Talbot turning into a featured article recently, age clearly isn't an issue. Mgm|^(talk) 11:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom and sources, such as [1] and [2]. Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added the sources to the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he's a bit of a 15-minuter, but he's been documented enough that we can write an article on him, and he's notable enough. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Has not yet won any awards--though apparently he has competed, and the interest in someone hi sage showing promise is the sort of human interest trivia that does not belong in an encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. A borderline notable WP:BLP case, so we should tend to delete. Perhaps he could be mentioned in a future article on golf prodigies (c.f. chess prodigies), using the cited media appearances as sources? JulesH (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I came across this article it was in a very bad state. But I added references and cleaned it up. WP:BLP says: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". How does that equal deletion? I see no contentious issues here, just the question of what he already did being notable enough to warrant inclusion. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Procedural keep for lack of nomination deletion rationale. Nothing personal. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:15, 23 November 2008 (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.