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. (jarbarf) (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A More Perfect Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A recent speech (recentism) by a senator, hardly notable. Should be deleted. The speech can be mentioned in his biography, as part of the Jeremiah Wright controversy, or moved to a title also covering the controversy surrounding his hate preacher/hate church. HillaryFan (talk) 10:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, just because of your username and biased edits. --Liface (talk) 10:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anti-feminist beliefs are no reason to disregard Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. HillaryFan (talk) 10:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your first edit was to show political support, your next edits were inflammatory remarks, and after that, your edits are devoted to nominating this. I'd hardly be one to talk. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Insincere nom from an obvious sock-troll. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as bad-faith nomination, and block the account whose only contributions are disruption and suggested BLP/NPOV violations on talk pages. *** Crotalus *** 11:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep as bad-faith nom. Also, I can't help but notice the username of the nominator, which leads me to believe that the nomination was purely political... Undeath (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. We've done this already. Please keep American political biases out of Wikipedia and focus on issues of notability, verifiability, and reliable sources. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep based on its being a bad faith nomination and the previous AfD which ended only 4 days ago. If the last discussion hadn't been reopened at DRV after a non-admin close, I'd WP:SNOW it myself right now. --Onorem♠Dil 13:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep the speech was a big deal. the article is well-sourced and balanced.MercyOtis (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)MercyOtis[reply]
• Speedy Keep. We don't do AfD's every four days. Speech easily passes notability guidelines as determined in the first AfD. Someone please close this ASAP.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep The speech got 3 days of mass media attention and the article had 44 refs. BJ^Talk 15:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Just concluded a long AfD which had no consensus whatsoever for deletion. Nominator's user name suggests this is a bad-faith nomination. Joshdboz (talk) 16:19, 27 March 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.