Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Role (second 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, needs some cleanup. Tagged as such. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Role

Brian Role (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article was originally deleted through AfD six months ago. A recreation was speedy deleted as CSD G4 several days ago. A DRV consensus overturned, in light of new information, for which, see the DRV. I will break with form here -- this article requires substantial cleanup to avoid WP:COI and "spam" concerns; therefore, I do call for deletion unless a rewrite/cleanup occurs within the debate's span. Xoloz 15:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete as not notable, but someone please add the references found in the DRV. I would, except I'm too lazy at 7:30 in the morning. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep and cleanup. Very notable, and COI isn't a reason for deletion here. Looks spammy, but that can be edited out. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless cleaned up - It seems Mr. Rolè might pass our criteria, but the article absolutely must be cleaned up. Core content policies are non-negotiable. Chris cheese whine 21:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - this article is stubbed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - the article has just been undeleted and relisted after a whole debate that lasted a couple of weeks and after several convintions that the subject was of notability according to Wikipedia. I would edit the article myself but it might not be accepted. Can anyone do it. I can provide all the information required. If I get the go ahead to do it myself then I will.Rolemagic 23:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Looks in better shape now. Keep cleaned-up version for now. Chris cheese whine 00:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep stub as subject meets WP:BIO.B.Wind 03:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I had originally proposed deleton of the article but new information on notability is now available, and indeed it proves he is indeed notable enopugh to have a place on the wiki. Maltesedog 13:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Painful to read, but Keep. Needs spit and polish, though. WMMartin 18:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Maltesedog. DarthVader 22:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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.