Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johan Lorbeer

: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 keep. Not clear from ANI discussion whether speedy keep #2 applies here, so regular (non-speedy) keep by week-long consensus. (non-admin closure) czar · · 01:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

=[[Johan Lorbeer]]=

:{{la|Johan Lorbeer}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Johan_Lorbeer Stats])

:({{Find sources|Johan Lorbeer}})

Article is clearly not encyclopedic, borders on puffery at points and doesn't establish notability. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 01:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jamminjimmy&oldid=560989400].  Unscintillating (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)]

  • Keep - Puffery can be easily removed and notability is established through the BBC article cited in the article. Additional sources can be found on High Beam [http://www.highbeam.com/Search?searchTerm=%22Johan+Lorbeer%22 here]. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep - Passes WP:GNG. Nom took this Straight to AfD without a PROD. One of several disruptive AfD by the same nominator. Dolovis (talk) 02:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment PROD is not necessary before AFD. PROD is for consensus deletions, I was sure there were other schools of thought here. Thanks for the WP:FAITH. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jamminjimmy&oldid=560989400].  Unscintillating (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)]
  • Agreed' WP:PROD is not a requirement to start WP:AFD. I don't see any bad faith here, just someone whom I disagree with. (I disagree with a lot of people)--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep "not encyclopedic" is not an argument to delete. "Puffery" is an editing issue, not a deletion issue. I can see no reason to delete at this time, but I would like to see more editing done to the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Speedy close, speedy keep: The nominator was blocked as of 06:52, 21 June 2013 for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:UnrepentantTaco&oldid=560860104 sock puppetry] per a discussion "Disruptive creation of groundless AFDs, probable sockpuppetry". Also nominator is not allowed to vote inside nomination -- removed. Crtew (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

::WP:SK 2a The closer should keep in mind the large number of nominations made on a large, diverse set of articles that the nominator made on the same day.Crtew (talk) 05:28, 22 June 2013 (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.