Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed O'Loughlin 2nd attempt
I am afraid this is a bad-faith I do not understand this nomination, especially as the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FEd_O%27Loughlin&diff=179635418&oldid=179628823 nominator himself suggested that the article be recreates with reliable sources, which this has been. It is not a  as Mr. O'Loughlin has been accused of misrepresentation over 100 times in the year 2003 alone. There is not one incident, but many incidents that fit the same pattern. I am very concerned that the nominator did not take this to the talk page, when it was an obviously different article. I am also very concerned that the nominator seemed not to read the talk page, in which these issues were discusssed in great detail. Recreating an article PROPERLY, with reliable sources is the way we improve wikipedia. The Jerusalem Post is noy a small organization, neither is the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. And both are reliable sources as well, wikipedia-wise. I '''am''' an administrator and I can confirm that the article at current is not the same, as it brings reliable sources instead of blogs
— User:Avraham, 01:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:COATRACK (Wikipedia:Coatrack articles)