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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Double name (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)

Pure Original Research Solomon7968 (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: since the nomination the article was 100% rewritten, based on WP:RS. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - seems to have some notability as a stub. Uberaccount (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's obvious rather than original. Warden (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:EXISTS, but references do not establish notability of the subject. Also, a lot of overlap with middle name. 1292simon (talk) 10:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep after rewrite. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2013 (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.