Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Sawyer (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Because no reason for deletion is provided. Can be renominated with an actual reason. Sandstein 21:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Sawyer[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Wrongful information
The article was inaccurate against the person
Tried to take it down multiple times
Please help take this page down as soon as possible — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladodgersfan1234 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
— Ladodgersfan1234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: the AFD's creator created this page with no formatting and tried to add an AFD template to Craig Sawyer, only to make a big mess out of the article. I have formatted it and this AFD myself. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why have we gone to a 2nd nomination (this page) when the first nomination, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Sawyer, doesn't exist? – numbermaniac 02:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Numbermaniac: This AFD's creator used another previous account to attempt to create the first nom page. See this diff. Proof that there the same person is the nominator's claim that they "Tried to take it down multiple times" when, looking at their contribs, they tried only once. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if this article is "wrongful" (sic) and inaccurate, the solution would be to correct the article rather than delete it. Vorbee (talk) 06:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 01:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - I have no idea what the nomination even is (blame the fact that the AfD was created with no formatting) - but the subject doesn't fail any policy that would allow it to be deleted. Also, deletion is not cleanup if that's what the nomination is going for, as that's what I understand from this faulty AfD - it seems to be trying to clean up using deletion. Kirbanzo (talk) 07:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is inaccurate you can always correct it. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid reason for deletion given. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above . Kpg jhp jm 08:38, 11 October 2018 (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.