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 speedy keep. nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Birgitta Trotzig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Unsourced BLP. Has been unsourced since January 2005. That is to say, for over five years. PeterbrownDancin (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If this is anything like your other AfD's, you should withdraw it right now and start adding sources to the article. Your nominations are time-consuming and disruptive, and demonstrating that you can count is of no help here. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Sourced in all of thirty seconds. Needs work... I'll do it, but Peter, PLEASE stop using AFD as cleanup! Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I was going to drop the results of this search here. Thanks Brad. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Well, let's just source the article. Good work, and thank you! PeterbrownDancin (talk) 03:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No no no, that's not how it goes. You need to give some careful consideration to your actions, and specifically the lack thereof in light of WP:BEFORE, and then I think you owe us all an apology--that is, the editors who run after you to do the work you could have done just as easily. These AfD nominations can not be called good faith efforts. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, article can be salvaged. RadManCF (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Response. I shall withdraw the nomination once another source is added. Thank you all for your hard work! Kudos! PeterbrownDancin (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You realize that with Google, you could do this yourself in about 2 minutes, right? Instead of making other editors run around like your lackeys, you could just do the work. Takes less time and less drama than AFD's. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but actually I am blocked from accessing www.google.com on my computer. The same goes for www.yahoo.com and other mega-search engines. When I was going through my super-privacy "ghost" stage in life I configured my browser to block those sites. PeterbrownDancin (talk) 03:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe you should stay away from nominating articles for deletion altogether. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way i see it, i have helped to rescue, just today, the following articles from impending summary deletion: Birgitta Trotzig, Martin Butora, Eva Kwok, and Salama al-Khufaji. These may not seem like much, but all together these articles represent hours of hard work and dedication that most certainly would have been summarily deleted without our intervention. Lets not sugar-coat the situation, in a few weeks a flood of deletion will be let loose, without process, over our encyclopedia, with articles singled out, segregated, and quickly executed all for being unsourced. I consider myself a freedom-fighter, a partisan of sorts, and my mission akin to hiding and rescuing refugees from the totalitarian powers that seek to murder them. PeterbrownDancin (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've got three sources on there, with a dozen more to re-write this thing. Can we call this one a day, please and move on? The chances of this article being deleted now are 0.0%. (As to the greater WikiPolitics of your last statement- I will refrain from comment.) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. Once again, thank you for all your hard work, gentlemen. I also shall not be nominating any more unsourced BLPs for deletion, as I see it doesn't sit well with you. My mistake. Won't happen again. PeterbrownDancin (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2010 (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.