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 delete. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Suhor[edit]

David Suhor (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)

Essentially advocacy, as shown by the emphasis on his POV, and the extraordinarily inappropriate non-encyclopedic detail. Possibly a NPOV article can be written, but the first step is removing this. I say this just the same as I would say for commercial advertising. This should not be taken to indicate that I disagree or agree with the contributors POV, or the subject's POV--I would say the same in either case. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 21:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 21:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:43, 21 June 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.