Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Hunt (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 09:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Hunt

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 10:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, United States of America, and California. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 10:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Christianity. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've restored much sourced content that was deleted by another user earlier this week before nomination. The discussion should proceed with this version, rather than one that removed pretty much every reference from a BLP. I'm not even sure the nomination makes sense, given the restored content, but someone thought it was promotional, so it's probably reasonable to keep having this discussion. Jclemens (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are sufficient sources for retaining this article, though this is a very dated version and needs both updating and additional citations. That said, Jclemens is right that there are sufficient deficiencies that at least warrant additional consideration by other editors. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Simply stating "fails GNG" without explantion is not a strong argument for deletion. Partofthemachine (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Partofthemachine: I thought so, too, so I looked a little more. Unfortunately, this and a half-dozen other AfDs from the same editor appear to come from a spree of BEFOREless BLP deletion nominations. I encourage a passing admin to weigh in. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article meets WP:GNG. No comment on the promotional tone of the article, as that can be improved via editing. I'll see if I can add some Newspapers.com clippings to those AJC references, but notability seems to be there. - Aoidh (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2022 (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.