Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Raymond Evelyn Stansfeld (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. No fault whatsoever on the nominator from my perspective, this course of action was explicitly allowed from th previous AfD. However, this AfD shows this will need some time and space before it comes back here, if at all. Daniel (talk) 07:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Raymond Evelyn Stansfeld[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

John Raymond Evelyn Stansfeld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was deprodded with the rationale, "already some okay sourcing, perhaps could be improved?" That "okay sourcing" consists of 3, listings, a primary source, and 3 non-reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG, and even if WP:NSOLDIER woud not have been deprecated, would not have met that. Created by a COI editor, delete as per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. The recent AfD was closed as no consensus, but I welcome !voters to read the closing admin's comments. None of the sourcing provided from independent sources is in-depth. The Times obit is a short blurb, along with dozens, if not hundreds of other similar blurbs regarding war dead. And that is the best of the sourcing. Onel5969 TT me 23:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 23:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Onel5969 What is your problem? I'm not very experienced user but i know that AfD is not a weapon. This AfD is consensus after three times relisted. The AfD has been closed for less than 24 hours. You should wait at least 7 days (or one month) to open new afD. You are a strong delete voter from previous AfD and you didn't accept your loss. What is the community value of these AfDs? Why people are using AfD as a Weapon ? WP:IDONTLIKE is everywhere. Shame on you. VocalIndia (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • VocalIndia the closer stated: "I am closing this as "no consensus", explicitly with no prejudice towards speedy renomination." which is exactly what Curbon7 onel5969 is doing here. Mztourist (talk) 03:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think this makes sense according to my experience on Wikipedia. I do not oppose to delete this article in the future but he should wait at least 7 days. Thanks VocalIndia (talk) 03:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mztourist, not me, I didn't do anything... Curbon7 (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't care what the closer says however he should wait at least 7 days to open new AfD. This is a contempt of wiki rules. That's all. VocalIndia (talk) 03:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    While deletion policy does say that if there is no consensus [...] users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, but there is no rule saying they must. Emphasis on should. If the nominator believes that by renominating the article they will attract a more clearer and substantial consensus, I can't find an official policy that says they can't do just that. WhoAteMyButter (📨talk│📝contribs) 03:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BASIC, which reads "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.", the few sources provided do not satisfy those criteria. Nor is any part of WP:ANYBIO satisfied. The closer in the previous AFD specifically stated that "I am unaware of any convention that the mere existence of an obituary grants notability, and in the absence of written guidelines saying as much, that argument contributes nothing to consensus in either direction." Mztourist (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - yet to see a case that this person meets WP:GNG Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - based on what I have seen in other AfD's an obit in the Times or Telegraph satisfies GNG, regardless of them not meeting WP:SOLDIER Gbawden (talk) 06:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the previous closer's statement that "I am unaware of any convention that the mere existence of an obituary grants notability, and in the absence of written guidelines saying as much, that argument contributes nothing to consensus in either direction." WP:SOLDIER was deprecated several months ago and is irrelevant. Mztourist (talk) 08:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The previous AfD was closed yesterday (with the comment "I could relist this discussion, but it is has already become quite unpleasant") after being relisted twice. How on earth is another AfD appropriate? This is just effectively yet another relisting which will probably also lead to unpleasantness, which makes no sense at all. Also, given the opinions expressed by a clear majority (7 to 2) in the discussion it should blatantly have been closed as a keep, not a no consensus - such a large majority cannot legitimately be brushed off without appearing to supervote. But I shall repeat exactly what I said the first time. An obituary in The Times (or another major national newspaper of record) has always been considered sufficient for notability. This consensus has been established over many AfDs and many years. The other sources, especially Who's Who, merely add to WP:GNG. Given this opinion has been attacked by those who are clearly incapable of being civil if their desire to delete, delete, delete, is challenged, and doubtless will be again, I have no real desire to enter into any further discussion about this, but my opinion stands. But just to reiterate, I believe a re-nomination so quickly is completely against the spirit of Wikipedia and an undermining of our processes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The closer clearly does not agree with your assertion that any such consensus exists, stating clearly: "I am unaware of any convention that the mere existence of an obituary grants notability, and in the absence of written guidelines saying as much, that argument contributes nothing to consensus in either direction." Mztourist (talk) 08:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The closer's opinion is irrelevant. They are a closer, not a contributor to the discussion. Their opinion bears no more weight than any other contributor's. Their job is to weigh up the opinions of those who took part, not to state their own opinion. If they wanted to do that they should have contributed to the discussion, not closed it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You need to reread Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How an AfD discussion is closed, specifically "Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." I would expect any closing Admin to explain their No Consensus close and consider policy based arguments while dismissing non-policy based arguments, as was done here. The Admin clearly and correctly stated that there is no policy or guideline that an obituary grants notability; this is not an opinion, it is a statement of fact. Mztourist (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not a policy or guideline, but a consensus. Previous consensus and precedent is important at AfD and cannot just be dismissed out of hand. You know this as well as I do. However, as I have already said, you're not going to agree with me and I'm not going to agree with you, so it's pointless bickering. Just state your opinion and I'll state mine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The closer specifically rejected any such convention, saying that in the absence of a written guideline it contributed nothing, so please stop raising it, especially as Stansfeld's Times entry isn't even an obituary. Mztourist (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Thanks to some of you for proving your desperation to delete this page. Doesn;t repeated attempts to delete this page look a bit strange?... is this a hatred of me personally, the pages I've created, the Stansfeld surname or what?

Please explain - because if you're all going to do this then at least have the decency to state outright what all the hatred is about.

Because I don't believe it's all just about the sources.

I've seen plenty of other wikipedia pages with similar or worse references yet no whiff of deletion anywhere in sight let alone repeated attempts at deletion.

I'd already predicted this kind of hatred - which is probably why no-one's bothered to try to work on all the Stanfield/Stansfeld/Stansfield pages before. Somehow I suspect that even if someone comes along with more sources - it'll still be deleted no matter what.

Do I really have to repeat everything I said on the first deletion page?

There's a range of sources for John R E Stansfeld's page: Who's Who (apparently only semi-notable?), DSO (a semi-notable decoration?), obituary in The Times (only semi-notable?), other newspaper reports (apparently only semi-notable?). But how many 'semi-notable' sources are needed to add-up to being 'notable'?

A bit bored having to repeat everything again. But that's the point isn't it - keep nominating it for deletion until everyone's bored and the deleters can outvote the keepers. I still vote to keep.

Hiltpriam (talk) 09:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hiltpriam: I don't think it's anything personal against you. There is a long-term struggle on Wikipedia between those who wish to delete anything they do not see as exceptionally notable and those who wish to keep anything that is not clearly completely non-notable. Both think they are serving the encyclopaedia best and neither will be swayed by the others' arguments. Your article just happens to have got caught up in it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Hiltpriam Wikipedia is not a family genealogy site. All pages must be properly sourced to meet WP:BASIC. If you take this personally then you can either actually retire or work on pages where notability is not disputed (i.e. not your family). Mztourist (talk) 13:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hiltpriam: Wikipedia is not fair sometime because of bullying editors. If you don't have many knowledge of Wikipedia notability guidelines, sure they will bullying you or newbies with their knowledge. I was also one of their victims. Now I am not afraid 😇 VocalIndia (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Disagree that he fails WP:GNG. Stansfeld is covered in two articles prior to death and three after in the Craven Herald. A Scotsman article from 2015 focuses on Stansfeld. While that article was written following "shared letters and photographs of a Scottish commander" from the family, I still feel it should count towards notability as it is a national paper which has deemed the subject significant enough to write an article about. The Press & Journal in 2014 wrote an article documenting an exhibition dedicated to Stansfeld. Even discounting the obituary, I believe there are enough sources here to pass GNG and that there is WP:SUSTAINED coverage. The Times obituary boosts the case for notability in my view. Per Necrothesp, The Times is a major national newspaper. NemesisAT (talk) 09:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment article has been improved significantly since nomination and thus ought to be kept per WP:HEY. NemesisAT (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - and once again, none of the keep !votes are based in actual policy. Onel5969 TT me 10:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This one actually contains newspaper articles and thus I disagree with you that it isn't reliable. There were five articles in the Craven Herald that are contained in that source. NemesisAT (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your analysis on sources that they are "self serving" not our's. VocalIndia (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://archive.org/details/historyoffamilyo00stan No COI publication No family publication Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail ✘ No
https://www.rutlandremembers.org/fallen/718/stansfeld-lieutenant-colonel-john-raymond-evelyn Yes not related to family No user-generated Yes more than a trivial mention ✘ No
COMMANDER OF THE 2ND GORDONS (Times Obit) ? newspaper with editorial oversight, but unclear whether this was an obit written by staff ? same as above No just one of many blurbs of the war dead, using this as a rationale for inclusion would mean that the thousands of war dead who appeared in Times papers during the war years would all be notable. ✘ No
http://www.dunninald.com/ww1-christmas-truce.html Yes non-related to the family No no editorial oversight No not about the subject, but by the subject ✘ No
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Christmas_Truce_by_the_Men_Who_Took_Part/opsXEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=John+Raymond+Evelyn+Stansfeld&pg=PT242 Yes non-related to the family No no editorial oversight, letters are simply published No not about the subject, but by the subject ✘ No
https://www.soldiersofthequeen.com/SouthAfrica-JohnRaymondEvelynStansfeld.html Yes non-related to the family No no editorial oversight, user generated content Yes not about the subject, but by the subject ✘ No
https://www.ukwhoswho.com/view/10.1093/ww/9780199540891.001.0001/ww-9780199540884-e-191178 Yes non-related to the family Yes no editorial oversight, user generated content No simple blurb, Who's Who is not the Dictionary of National Biography ✘ No
https://kirkbymalham.info/KMI/malhamdale/servicemen/jrestansfield.html Yes non-related to the family No no editorial oversight Yes in-depth about his military service ✘ No
https://cpgw.org.uk/soldier-records/john-raymond-evelyn-stansfield/ Yes non-related to the family No information provided by users, no evidence of editorial oversight Yes in-depth about his military service ✘ No
https://www.scotsman.com/arts-and-culture/scot-who-led-troops-battle-loos-remembered-1997681 ? while the paper is independent, this article is based solely on information and quotes provided by the family No information provided by users, no evidence of editorial oversight Yes in-depth about his military service ✘ No
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/aberdeen/280838/wwi-treasure-trove-of-gordon-highlander-momentos-opens-to-public-for-first-time/ Yes the paper is independent Yes reliable paper No article is about the exhibit, which was a memorial by the family, not about the man ✘ No
https://www.cwgc.org/find-records/find-war-dead/casualty-details/167193/STANSFELD,%20JOHN%20RAYMOND%20EVELYN/ Yes government database Yes government source No simple listing ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

References

  • Keep 1. He has an entry in UK Who's Who: WP:ANYBIO states that "3. The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography)." this links to the Biographical Dictionary article which states that a "biographical dictionary is a type of encyclopedic dictionary limited to biographical information. Many attempt to cover the major personalities of a country (with limitations, such as living persons only, in Who's Who, or deceased people only, in the Dictionary of National Biography). Others are specialized, in that they cover important names in a subject field, such as architecture or engineering."

UK Who's Who is one of the recommended sources provided to editors by the Wikipedia Library https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/76

2. He has an obituary in The Times, the UK's newspaper of record. According to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission over 1100 allied soldiers were reported dead on 28th September 1915, so it's unsurprising that little space was given to Stansfeld but his obituary's length would be at a guess in the top 1% in length of all the soldiers reported in the Times that day.

3. There were obituaries in the London Daily News - Thursday 14 October 1915 https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0003212/19151014/081/0005, the Army and Navy Gazette - Saturday 16 October 1915 https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0001394/19151016/049/0013, and Truth - Wednesday 20 October 1915 https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002961/19151020/023/0006 All mention that at aged 19 he was awarded the DSO, at the time the youngest officer to receive the award. He was also awarded the Sandhurst Sword of Honour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Military_Academy_Sandhurst#Sword_of_Honour They also reported that he was the Army and Navy heavyweight boxing champion, the semi-final and final were covered at the time in the Sporting Life - Saturday 26 September 1903 https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000893/19030926/117/0006

4. Further obituaries were published in amongst others The Scotsman - Monday 04 October 1915 https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000540/19151004/068/0010, the Dundee Evening Telegraph - Monday 04 October 1915 https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000563/19151004/017/0002, the Aberdeen Weekly Journal - Friday 08 October 1915 https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000573/19151008/120/0007, Grantham Journal - Saturday 09 October 1915 https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000400/19151009/043/0002 the Montrose, Arbroath and Brechin review - Friday 08 October 1915 https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0001421/19151008/072/0005 the latter reported that his right leg was amputated just prior to his death. His death was also reported in the Illustrated London News on Saturday 30 October 1915 with a prominent photograph https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0001578/19151030/069/0019

5. His memorial service was reported in The Scotsman - Monday 18 October 1915 https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000540/19151018/268/0007, the Daily Record - Monday 18 October 1915 https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000728/19151018/105/0003, the Aberdeen Press and Journal - Monday 18 October 1915 (with photo) https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000576/19151018/005/0003 the Dundee Courier - Monday 18 October 1915 https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000164/19151018/030/0004, Broad Arrow - Friday 22 October 1915 https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000587/19151022/048/0014, the Montrose Standard - Friday 22 October 1915 https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002751/19151022/057/0005 and the Montrose, Arbroath and Brechin review https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0001421/19151022/114/0006 Piecesofuk (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. Who's who is not the country's "standard national biographical dictionary" as required by #3 of WP:ANYBIO which is specifically stated to be the Dictionary of National Biography
2. The Times entry is not an Obituary because its not a news article, rather it is details provided by his family.
3-5 Can't read what they say. Mztourist (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above Who's Who is not the DNB as it's a biographical dictionary of notable living people Piecesofuk (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your comment, you say he has an entry in Who's Who, but you also say that Who's Who is a "biographical dictionary of notable living people" so which is it? He is dead. All the other sources are "obituaries" but I assume (as I can't access them) they're actually just death notices/listings, not obituaries which are news articles, so would add nothing to notability. Mztourist (talk) 05:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who's Who has been published in its current form annually since 1897 and only contains living people. However, all those with entries who had since died (and therefore been removed from the annual version) were collected every ten years or so into a volume entitled Who Was Who. This meant that libraries (and in pre-internet times almost every public library in the UK held it, as it is the UK's standard biographical reference work) only had to keep ten years' worth of volumes, plus the Who Was Who series. The online version, however, includes everyone who has ever been in Who's Who and is therefore a biographical dictionary of both living and dead people. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure when he was originally included in Who's Who but he was in the 1914 edition which is on archive.org https://archive.org/details/whoswho1914001352mbp/page/n2015/mode/1up. Piecesofuk (talk) 11:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
#3 of WP:ANYBIO clearly identifies the Dictionary of National Biography as the country's standard national biographical dictionary, not Who's Who. Mztourist (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are both standard reference works in the UK. They serve entirely different purposes. The DNB is an historical biographical dictionary that only covers dead people and is very selective (far more so than similar works in countries with considerably smaller populations and much shorter histories like Australia, Canada and New Zealand, which we also consider to meet ANYBIO #3). WW covers only living people (although those who were selected while alive remain on the online version and in Who Was Who), and is much less selective (although it only covers people who were seen as notable in their day). Wikipedia, of course, is somewhere in between: far less selective than the DNB, but generally more selective than WW. Having a WW entry does not guarantee WP notability, but it's certainly an important contributing factor. Being selected (and one does not apply or pay to be included) indicates that the editors considered the individual to be notable, just like having an obituary in a major newspaper indicates that the editors considered the individual to be notable. Wikipedia, on the other hand, has a tendency to be somewhat biased in favour of modern pop culture figures, many of whom probably wouldn't qualify for either a WW entry or an obit in a major newspaper. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, #3 of ANYBIO clearly identifies the Dictionary of National Biography as the country's standard national biographical dictionary. As you acknowledge DNB "is very selective" and so if someone is in there then they are deemed notable. If they're in Who's Who #3 of ANYBIO isn't satisfied. Mztourist (talk) 07:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Dictionary of National Biography is clearly used as an example. ANYBIO does not say it is the only valid source. NemesisAT (talk) 08:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"the country's standard national biographical dictionary" is singular and DNB is given as the specific example for the UK. Mztourist (talk) 03:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously we'll have to agree to disagree here as we both interpret the wording differently. NemesisAT (talk) 06:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The London Daily News obituary is headlined "WON DSO AT 19", with a subheading "Notable Career of Colonel who Has Died of Wounds" and contains four paragraphs outlining his career from Sandhurst to the South African war and his army career in the 1900s in Egypt and India, so it's not just a death notice. Piecesofuk (talk) 11:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As with the Times "obituary" would need to see it to form a view on whether or not its a news article or just something provided by his family. Mztourist (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no evidence that the Times obituary was provided by the family; it doesn't come from his Who's Who entry as there are more specifics over his medals and his military career Piecesofuk (talk) 12:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no evidence that the Times "obituary" is a news article written by a Times journalist. At the top of column 3 it states "the Times would be obliged if relatives of officers who fall in service of the country would forward with the intimation of death any biographical details in their possession", so it is likely that the information was provided by his family. Mztourist (talk) 07:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons cited above and at the last AFD. Article's sourcing can be improved, but this is no reason for an AFD. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why so serious? Actually I don't want to vote again I've too tired for arguments because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT gang. As I said in pervious AfD, there is enough to meet WP:GNG. VocalIndia (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The previous AFD ended yesterday. It should've been closed as keep. It is ridiculous to have to start this all over again. Ample evidence has been presenting proving he is clearly notable. Dream Focus 17:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kudos to Piecesofuk who has provided further detailed and extensive evidence of the subject's notability. This confirms that the subject passes WP:ANYBIO, WP:BASIC, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Our numerous policies therefore indicate that we should retain and develop the article rather than deleting it. These policies include WP:ATD, WP:NEXIST, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — I voted Keep just 6 days ago. Not sure why this needs to be repeated. Has a wide spread of sources as demonstrated by Piecesofuk. Clearly meets a bunch of policies. — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 21:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ... and has improved since being re-nominated — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 21:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Despite being well written and well researched, I do not see anything exceptional (i.e. notable) in his military career. We cannot have an artile on every person awarded a DSO. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not? Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER. That is what makes it special - there is no size limit. NemesisAT (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Article is not what it was when nominated for deletion for the 2nd time. WP:HEY. The issue is this article; the Slippery slope argument is fallacious and irrelevant. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agree per above keep votes! Result is pretty clear ! This discussion has been going on for 9 days. What are you waiting for? Admin or AfD closure is reluctant to close. Wiki admins (some) are always telling about fair and but they doing injustice. 117.18.228.203 (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mztourist and Sansten ကိုမေကလိူးတွေလီးပဲ ငါလိုးမသား နမလိုးတွေ ဖေတရာလိုး ခွေးလိုးမသား ဖာသေမသားတွေ ? pls 117.18.228.203 (talk) 20:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
btw i forget Vanamonde93 မင်းလဲ မင်း အမေ စောင်ပန်ကြီး ပြန် လိုးနေ ငါလိုးမသား? 😌 117.18.228.203 (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what that means even with Google Translate and question why you choose not to write in English as you did earlier. Mztourist (talk) 06:17, 19 August 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Raymond_Evelyn_Stansfeld_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1039704527"