Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adolfo Sansolini
=[[Adolfo Sansolini]]=
:{{la|Adolfo Sansolini}} – (
:({{findsources|Adolfo Sansolini}})
R12056 (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm a little confused about this nomination. It was prodded just an hour ago, and the prod has not been removed, or contested . There's no need for AfD when prod will suffice--it just confuses things and adds to the workload. The nom., has been doing a number of these, and also adding incorrect speedy tags -- se his talk p. DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per my prodding of the article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't think the notability is quite there, yet. Happy to reconsider if additional sources about the subject become available. I also procedurally declined the prod - I agree that it should not have come to AFD with an active prod, but it's here now, so it gets its 7 days. I'll also check in with the nom, who may have an explanation that is not obvious here. Best, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - I see a few mentions (e.g. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4222057.stm this], or [http://observer.guardian.co.uk/readerseditor/story/0,,1391632,00.html this]) but not quite enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO, I don't think. They're more about the organisations tham him, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 17:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2010 (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.