Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Rocco (2nd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 September 19.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. It's 6 [correction 10] days since the first AfD was opened, which this is a continuation of. Ty 01:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Rocco

Asked to re-list for AfD by an admin-editor who objected to NAC of AfD as keep by me after full listing period, few comments and improvements made to article by an editor Fr33kman^{talk APW} 01:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fr33kman^{talk APW} 01:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fr33kman^{talk APW} 01:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete seems to be mostly passing mentions. JJL (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the references just aren't significant coverage. Fr33kman's best intentions aside the article doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion and I can't find any sources that help it enough to keep it. Non-Admin Closure is really meant for the super-obvious stuff like snowballs and such. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Yep, fully agree! The problem was that I read the initial comments of Ethicoaestheticist (talk · contribs) to mean that he had added sources that "passes" WP:CREATIVE and missed the word "nothing". My only excuse for that is that I am dyslexic: but still... As for closing it, my thought was "nobodies bothered discussing this (it was 5 days old) and theirs a backlog". So tried to be helpful :-). Have altered my conditions for considering a NAC :-) I think the rest I've done were probably correct. Anyone is welcome to review and comment my log Cheers! :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 19:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn, coverage isn't exactly high, doesn't even make a strong claim of notability. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per the rationale given by the nominator in the original, improperly-closed AfD. Daniel (talk) 06:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've looked for sources, per my comment on the original AfD, but haven't turned up anything to justify a keep. I agree the AfD was improperly closed, but I don't think it's a big deal. A no-consensus tending to keep might have been appropriate given the lack of discussion.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2008 (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.