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 Speedy keep; WP:SNOW and no valid cause for deletion given. — User:Adrian/zap2.js 21:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Page has become completely scurrilous, has POV too embedded to fix. Subject probably doesn't warrant Wiki entry at all, or maybe a 10-line entry. Now there are TWO entries on Marsden/Donnelly controversy, a 10-year-old harassment case. Artticle is now loaded with unsubstantiated/unproven allegations of criminal behavior. Article appears to be a hatchet job by Canadians against a local pundit. Article is also libelous by innuendo under Canadian law. Attempts to make this article NPOV have been rejected by administrator and two or three writer/editors. See (long) discussion page. Delete -- Ceraurus 18:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep, subject is obviously notable as published columnist alone; this is just another content dispute, not a valid AfD nomination. Monicasdude 18:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep clearly notable, per Monicasdude. Fagstein 19:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. I have been involved with the editing of this article and can confirm that this nomination for deletion is the result of a content dispute. The subject is clearly notable--a lexis nexis search produces over 200 articles over 10 years. (Why has the proposer of this deletion, Mark Bourrie, signed himself "Ceraurus" above rather than his wiki-handle?) Bucketsofg 19:54, 4 March 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.