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 speedy keep. Closed under WP:SKCRIT #2: "The nomination was unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption and... no uninvolved editor has recommended deletion or redirection as an outcome of the discussion." Clear revenge nomination after accusing article creator of being on a "reckless deletion spree" for nominating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wahdat (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Wrenn[edit]

Nick Wrenn (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)

References merely name-checking the subject. I don't really see any solid coverage in WP:N which discusses the subject in detail. Fails to meet basic GNG Imo. Saqib (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• As the one that accepted through AfC, I'll explain my decision. I wholeheartedly agree with the nominator that all of the references about Facebook are merely name checks and not WP:SIGCOV. However, I did feel that the articles about his jobs at CNN from outlets such as Campaign (ref 1), PRWeek (ref 8 9), and Marketing Week (ref 10 11) were covering the subject directly to meet the significant requirement. Ref 9 10 also comes via TBI Vision (Television Business International, apparently), which claims editorial oversight. Those are multiple pieces from different sources that are dedicated to news of Mr. Warren's accomplishments. It's certainly not enough to create an in-depth piece about the man's life, but I have never had issues with having stub articles that meet WP:GNG. A stub in main space is more likely to mature with with the eyes of the community than one in draft space with only the creator's attention.

  So that's why it was accepted. I appear to have stumbled into some kind of squabble between the page creator and the deletion nominator (seen at creator's Talk and SPI, so I don't really have an interest in casting a !vote in the interest of avoiding any drama. -2pou (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you dear 2pou Actually the nominator is doing this deliberately and not only but he is doing this with everyone whom he don't like. he was involved in vandalism and he has received warning multiple times from Mr. Ritchie333 and few others. anyways thanks for approving i appreciate it. Memon KutianaWala (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2020 (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.