Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srđan Šaper

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. Withdrawn by nominator. — Gwalla | Talk 01:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Srđan Šaper[edit]

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

poorly sourced article full of promo and puffery. He might be notable, but this article is beyond rescue so WP:TNT should be applied The Banner talk 14:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I broadly agree with the sentiment of WP:TNT, I must stress that it is just an essay, not a policy. The man is obviously notable. Even if we take it at face value, it says that " if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) [...], then delete the content ". Now, browsing a bit through history, we can find some quite decent (if under-referenced) versions, like this. Most of the puffery seems to be added by Anja Kosanovic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), particularly in this batch [1]. So, let us just revert to a 2010 version, and take it on from here. No such user (talk) 11:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not go that that far because the article made me stomage tumble. I have reverted to your suggested version. The Banner talk 20:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As pointed out above, there are versions in the article history which can be used in place of the promotional mess that is the current version. TNT need not be applied with history available for reversion. -- Whpq (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request speedy close as keep, because article turned out to be salvageable but I did not go back far enough. Nomination withdrawn. The Banner talk 20:18, 23 August 2013 (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.