Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Storme Aerison

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. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Storme Aerison

The article contains no content after being removed for being unsourced , there has been no discussion on the talk page. Synchronism (talk) 05:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Enigma ^message 06:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If/then I'm not familiar enough with deletion to know if it should be deleted. It's notable, but does that mean we have to keep it? Certainly, it was a BLP violation as it was. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Gross BLP violation that places undue weight on the negative aspects. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, as the page has now been blanked. It Is Me Here (talk) 11:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The speedy has been declined by Tikiwont (talk · contribs). I've restored the article and stubbified it to removed the WP:BLP violations. Cunard (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, let me clarify that i declined a speedy deletion that had been requested per CSD A3 per lack of content but that doesn't imo apply to an article that has been blanked. I haven't really checked the content underneath nor can i do so now.--Tikiwont (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While agreeing with the sentiments expressed by the majority here, in view of current WP:BLP, I would add only that I initiated this article during my first six months of contributing and perhaps for that reason the article reflects many of the poor habits of a newbie (such as the POV slant). Although the article probably could be salvaged to meet at least minimally acceptable standards by spending a half hour or so editing and adding appropriate footnotes, unfortunately, I ain't got the time or interest these days. —Ryanaxp (talk) 20:36, 3 November 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.