Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bureaucrash (2nd nomination)
I tagged this for rescue, but looking at the history this does not even seem to have been necessary; the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bureaucrash&oldid=277696973 nominated version contained http://washingtontimes.com/news/2006/nov/27/20061127-105159-3650r/?page=3 this ref, which is a three page article exclusively about the subject in a mainstream, high-circulation newspaper, satisfying beyond doubt the |general notability guideline. The other sources added, mentioned by Michael Q. Schmidt above, only underline this. As SoWhy notes, issues with the article could easily have been rectified through normal editing. I notice that the article was not tagged for notability nor was a discussion about notability initiated on the talkpage; either of these steps would have negated the need for a deletion discussion. The nomination is only a critque of the past and then-present state of the article, and did not address it's |potential. I would urge the nominator to follow  and use AfD as a last resort in future
— User:Skomorokh, 23:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:POTENTIAL||WP:BEFORE (Wikipedia:Notability)