Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio McKee (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
A note. |
strong keep |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
*With his new refs he passes [[WP:V]] with reliable [[WP:SOURCES]]. I still say it is a '''Speedy Keep'''. Plus he has several notable fights. [[User:PortlandOregon97217|PortlandOregon97217]] ([[User talk:PortlandOregon97217|talk]]) 04:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC) |
*With his new refs he passes [[WP:V]] with reliable [[WP:SOURCES]]. I still say it is a '''Speedy Keep'''. Plus he has several notable fights. [[User:PortlandOregon97217|PortlandOregon97217]] ([[User talk:PortlandOregon97217|talk]]) 04:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC) |
||
*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio McKee]] was closed a mere ''two hours'' before this renomination. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] ([[User talk:Uncle G|talk]]) 11:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC) |
*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio McKee]] was closed a mere ''two hours'' before this renomination. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] ([[User talk:Uncle G|talk]]) 11:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC) |
||
*'''Strong keep'''. On the merits of the article alone, I'd say to keep as passing [[WP:GNG]]. While I'm not convinced that the quick renomination meets the criteria of [[WP:Speedy keep]], I'm also not sure it's the best good-faith tactic for dealing with this, so I oppose the deletion request on procedural grounds. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 18:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 18:32, 6 January 2013
AfDs for this article:
- Antonio McKee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No consensus reached last time, but this article still fails WP:NMMA JadeSnake (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- With his new refs he passes WP:V with reliable WP:SOURCES. I still say it is a Speedy Keep. Plus he has several notable fights. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio McKee was closed a mere two hours before this renomination. Uncle G (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Strong keep. On the merits of the article alone, I'd say to keep as passing WP:GNG. While I'm not convinced that the quick renomination meets the criteria of WP:Speedy keep, I'm also not sure it's the best good-faith tactic for dealing with this, so I oppose the deletion request on procedural grounds. —C.Fred (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)