Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian Gonsalves

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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Gonsalves[edit]

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

Long-term unsourced BLP with little or no notability. The Wordsmith^Communicate 21:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The award seems possibly notable, do we have a specific guideline on where, say, a UN award handed out to 500 people becomes so? I've quickly added URLs (not full cites) to three sources regarding that award. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 05:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment Seems to have (co-)authored a dozen odd books[1]. Not sure if they are notable though. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see reasons for inclusion as presented above.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

which reasons? LibStar (talk) 13:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

note to closing admin according to this user's log, this is the part of 5 keep !votes undertaken in 5 minutes. LibStar (talk) 13:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you know that I didnt read trough them all before? and then proceeded to write them down in this period only. Assume good faith.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

turning up and voting with minimal explanation like "meets minimum requirements" or "as per reasons above" doesn't seem you even read the AfD and article. LibStar (talk) 04:26, 23 December 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.