User:Dajenne/Larry Stylinson – Speedy close. How this didn't get deleted on sight under any of a number of WP:CSD clauses (including WP:BLP) is beyond me. Not worth wasting time over. – -- RoySmith (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:Dajenne/Larry Stylinson (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) The MFD instructions require that a page be problematic before deletion and the only argument here was it was old. That is not a reason to delete w draft. We should not drive away contributors like that. Wikijuniorwarrior (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse This shouldn't even be restored for the sake of non-admins to review it. There are BLP violations in the history and it probably should have been deleted WP:G10. -- GB fan 20:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

User:Dajenne/Larry Stylinson – Speedy close. How this didn't get deleted on sight under any of a number of WP:CSD clauses (including WP:BLP) is beyond me. Not worth wasting time over. – -- RoySmith (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The MFD instructions require that a page be problematic before deletion and the only argument here was it was old. That is not a reason to delete w draft. We should not drive away contributors like that. Wikijuniorwarrior (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse This shouldn't even be restored for the sake of non-admins to review it. There are BLP violations in the history and it probably should have been deleted WP:G10. -- GB fan 20:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Paul Joseph Watson – Endorse – -- RoySmith (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Paul Joseph Watson (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) There is a decent amount of RS coverage of him, e.g. [1][2] [3] [4] [5] This coverage was not in the article when it was deleted at AFD earlier this year (which I know because of this link). Everymorning (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] I'm not seeing it none of them are about him, they are mentions about comments he's made. The third isn't even that. GNG requires the sources to be talking about him in a substantive way --82.14.37.32 (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Paul was deleted at AFD emphatically in 2006 (after an initial no consensus first time around), deleted several times in the interim, recreated in February 2016 and deleted via AFD again in March. The last AFD debate wasn't heavily participated in, but the only argument to keep was from an IP address and related to his YouTube view count. I'm not really convinced that the new sources would add enough on a topic with no less than seven previous deletions in the log. KaisaL (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. This one's probably staying deleted absent a compelling reason to undelete. Mackensen (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - The sources are crap and if that's the best there is then it's better off not being here. –Davey2010^Talk 20:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse the sources provided aren't significant enough to merit a reexamination. Hobit (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Paul Joseph Watson – Endorse – -- RoySmith (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

There is a decent amount of RS coverage of him, e.g. [1][2] [3] [4] [5] This coverage was not in the article when it was deleted at AFD earlier this year (which I know because of this link). Everymorning (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing it none of them are about him, they are mentions about comments he's made. The third isn't even that. GNG requires the sources to be talking about him in a substantive way --82.14.37.32 (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Paul was deleted at AFD emphatically in 2006 (after an initial no consensus first time around), deleted several times in the interim, recreated in February 2016 and deleted via AFD again in March. The last AFD debate wasn't heavily participated in, but the only argument to keep was from an IP address and related to his YouTube view count. I'm not really convinced that the new sources would add enough on a topic with no less than seven previous deletions in the log. KaisaL (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This one's probably staying deleted absent a compelling reason to undelete. Mackensen (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The sources are crap and if that's the best there is then it's better off not being here. –Davey2010^Talk 20:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the sources provided aren't significant enough to merit a reexamination. Hobit (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.