Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Silna

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The result was Nomination withdrawn. Natg 19 (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Silna[edit]

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

This page has the same information as Ozzie Silna. As that page is better formatted and has more information, this page should be deleted and merged into Ozzie Silna. Natg 19 (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per comments below Natg 19 (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed. But from there, the page should be renamed to 'Ozzie and Daniel Silna'. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Natg 19: Are you recommending deletion in any way? Your argument appears to recommended merge as the course of action, so I wanted to give you a heads up that AfD noms that don't have a deletion argument qualify for speedy keep #1. If this is the case, you may want to withdraw your nom. In the future, you can propose what may be a controversial move at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers or otherwise just do it yourself WP:BOLDly. Have a good one czar ♔ 04:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly need to be rewritten, but has enough RS to pass GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:01, 29 April 2014 (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.