- 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Julian Bunetta
- Julian Bunetta ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
vanity page, fails WP:GNG, no secondary sources at all -- Y not? 17:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral - While it does look like it is written in the form of a vanity page, it does seem like it can be improved with secondary sources and a less vain way to talk about him.
Jackninja5 (
talk) 18:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- It would indeed be true if there were secondary sources. However, there aren't any. --
Y
not? 22:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Then unless someone finds any, I would say Delete. Jackninja5 ( talk) 04:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- It would indeed be true if there were secondary sources. However, there aren't any. --
Y
not? 22:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk 17:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk 17:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanjagenije (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanjagenije (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete lack of sources to support the claims of article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as no signs of a better convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 22:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Julian Bunetta
- Julian Bunetta ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
vanity page, fails WP:GNG, no secondary sources at all -- Y not? 17:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral - While it does look like it is written in the form of a vanity page, it does seem like it can be improved with secondary sources and a less vain way to talk about him.
Jackninja5 (
talk) 18:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- It would indeed be true if there were secondary sources. However, there aren't any. --
Y
not? 22:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Then unless someone finds any, I would say Delete. Jackninja5 ( talk) 04:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- It would indeed be true if there were secondary sources. However, there aren't any. --
Y
not? 22:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk 17:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk 17:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanjagenije (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanjagenije (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete lack of sources to support the claims of article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as no signs of a better convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 22:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- 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.