Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Horley (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 speedy keep. no valid reason for re-nomination. WP:NAC is only an essay, while WP:BURO is solid policy. You want to change policy, don't do it by pointy AfDs. Scott Mac 17:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Horley[edit]

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

Renominating because of an improper non admin closure. Shadowjams (talk) 09:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that the non-admin closure of the previous AFD was flawed, but only because I would have closed it as a Keep instead. The sourcing was improved, and the primary issues identified are cleanup problems. The debate was open for the required 7 days (21, actually), and so no early closure flaw exists. If this is a re-nomination due to the no-consensus close, nominator should indicate that; at present, though, there is no deletion rationale indicated. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:09, 18 November 2010 (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.