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.
Speedy keep that last AfD was closed less than two months ago. Furthermore, while that discussion may have been closed as no 'consensus', the arguments for keeping the article were much stronger than the arguments for deletion.
Lepricavark (
talk) 15:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep - Sources exist - this is becoming an issue of competence now. @
GeoffreyT2000: Can you please confirm that you've read
WP:BEFORE - I've pointed it out to you already and you've ignored me.
Exemplo347 (
talk) 20:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Note - There were sources identified in the 2nd AfD discussion (
here,
here, and
here) so it's very odd that this new AfD discussion was started.
Exemplo347 (
talk) 02:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)reply
The nominator withdrew his nomination
here, noting that he would renom in a couple of months. He self-reverted several minutes later.
Lepricavark (
talk) 02:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)reply
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.