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. - Mailer Diablo 14:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David E. Kendall[edit]

changed link above to reflect that David E. Kendall is now the page on AfD after David Kendall was made into a dab page. Current link is confusing the AfD.--Isotope23 18:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence provided to show how this guy meets BIO, delete --Peta 03:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but I'm going to make it a name disambiguation page. There's a screenwriter/director, a statistician, and Clinton's lawyer during the Lewinsky scandal. --Dhartung | Talk 04:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turns out it was stealth-vandalized from the article about Clinton's lawyer back in January. I reverted and moved to David E. Kendall, where the AFD tag is now, and created David Kendall as an hndis page. Per Jayron32 below, though, I think there's a case for a non-stub article on the guy but there would have to be more. As it was, this was not his article, it was stolen! --Dhartung | Talk 05:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the vandal at work. --Dhartung | Talk 05:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep PPI is a notable organization; if he is involved in steering policy for that group, he may be notable. Article is REALLY stubby, however. --Jayron32 05:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Unclear So which guy is being deleted, the Lewinski Lawyer or the PPI guy? I would weak-keep either; even the Lewinski lawyer has notability if he had such a central role in what was a HIGHLY notable legal case. It still a stubby article, but it could be improved... --Jayron32 06:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's my position that the article history up to January 2006 was for David E. Kendall, Clinton's attorney, and that by reverting it I have resolved the notability issue. If somebody feels strongly that the PPI guy needs his own article, creating it is up to them. To preserve article history, it would have to be an enitrely new article, though, unless an administrator wants to tease out the little bit from David E. Kendall that relates to this guy's presence in that article history. --Dhartung | Talk 14:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close as resolved. Clinton's impeachment counsel is obviously notable. Gazpacho 03:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The President's lead attorney during the scandal was clearly notable. I remember numerous news articles about him. —Lowellian (reply) 23:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per Gazpacho. I can't believe nobody noticed for like 10 months, but clearly the lawer Kendall is notable, and David Kendall is a good disambiguation page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:31, 14 October 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.