This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2009 December 20. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was no consensus. Upon further review at the DRV, it seems that consensus is to close this as no consensus, default to keep. Therefore I see no need to keep it deleted, as it seems that sources were added to the article post creation of the AFD, and the delete !votes are therefore old. The !keeps are (while not the strongest ever, and some are indeed crap) therefore keep their voice as turning this into no consensus. Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 10:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
(Previous Close)The result was delete. I throughly looked over this discussion, and have come to the opinion that this AFD merits a delete closure. The !vote count is close (discounting the canvassing that was done), but the delete !voters presented much better arguments than the keep !votes.
Coffee //
have a cup //
flagged revs now! // 14:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
Odette Krempin (
|
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)
This article survived a previous AfD owing to general claims of notability. However, it grew into a BLP nightmare and was full of unreferenced claims of all sorts. It was recently stripped of all unreferenced material, i.e. everything, and nothing of note remains. A search for sources was conducted, turning up only a couple marginal news stories about the subject's involvement in a minor beauty pageant controversy. As it stands, there are no reliable sources proving notability.
Spike Wilbury (
talk) 16:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2009 December 20. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was no consensus. Upon further review at the DRV, it seems that consensus is to close this as no consensus, default to keep. Therefore I see no need to keep it deleted, as it seems that sources were added to the article post creation of the AFD, and the delete !votes are therefore old. The !keeps are (while not the strongest ever, and some are indeed crap) therefore keep their voice as turning this into no consensus. Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 10:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
(Previous Close)The result was delete. I throughly looked over this discussion, and have come to the opinion that this AFD merits a delete closure. The !vote count is close (discounting the canvassing that was done), but the delete !voters presented much better arguments than the keep !votes.
Coffee //
have a cup //
flagged revs now! // 14:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
Odette Krempin (
|
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)
This article survived a previous AfD owing to general claims of notability. However, it grew into a BLP nightmare and was full of unreferenced claims of all sorts. It was recently stripped of all unreferenced material, i.e. everything, and nothing of note remains. A search for sources was conducted, turning up only a couple marginal news stories about the subject's involvement in a minor beauty pageant controversy. As it stands, there are no reliable sources proving notability.
Spike Wilbury (
talk) 16:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
reply