Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lou Haneles

: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 speedy keep per my rationale [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Frank_Novosel here]. Alex, what exactly is your problem? Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

=[[Lou Haneles]]=

:{{la|Lou Haneles}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lou Haneles}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{Find sources|Lou Haneles}})

Might not be notable enough for Wikipedia. Alex (talk) 05:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep so are we nominating articles now who "might" not be notable. If your not even sure if someone is notable or not, maybe you shouldn't be nominating them. A good rule of thumb is to only nominate articles that you "know" aren't notable, not ones that you suspect are not notable. How do you know if they are notable or not? There are notability guidelines here on wikipedia that explain exactly which types are articles are notable and which are not. When you nominate an article, you should refer to a specific guideline that you feel that the article violates so that the people discussing the topic can have some frame of reference as to how the article could be fixed or whether it is impossible to be fixed. Kinston eagle (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

:Really? On all three? The same thing? Really?? Alex (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep. Week nominator rationale. Has a varied enough professional career and enough sourcing to make him worthy of an article. Spanneraol (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Neutral I could be convinced the individual isn't notable, but not by the rational that similar articles have been deleted. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep as weak rationale and honestly suggest that the nominator take a wikibreak. We don't know why you're on this dismissive crusade on your own articles, and we don't care. Please take a break from this site instead of slapping old baseball players in the face. Vodello (talk) 04:14, 3 August 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.