Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor Celorio (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. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Celorio (2nd nomination)[edit]

Edits to the article toward the end of the last AfD have not received due consideration and the deletion was overturned at deletion review. So now is the opportunity to decide if the additions change the prior verdict. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 00:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs work, but its relatively novice editors did respond with evidence of notability at least, so let's give them a chance. Dicklyon 05:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easy to assume good faith based on the work that's been done since the first nomination. At the moment the article is referenced, decently written, and gives good assertions of notability. Yes, it needs work, but in good shape for a starting article, and better referenced than a great many -Markeer 12:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs work but decently sourced ascertaining notability Alf photoman 16:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But needs more work. Annamonckton 18:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well sourced.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 19:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good article. --Hotentot 20:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Hotentot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside AfD.

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.