The result was No consensus; (default keep all). Although relisted three times, the discussion has gone stale without any consensus. The deletion policy requires a keep outcome in such a case. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply
co-nominating the following pages;
Delete nn given names, no evidence that the names are borne by anybody notable (these are a series of nn stubs created at the same time, one already deleted at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laimnesis (name))
Mayalld (
talk) 14:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
*D elete all per nom.
ww2censor (
talk) 14:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Duplicate !vote strikethrough by Jerry
reply
HeartofaDog ( talk) 23:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC) reply
K eep Duplicate !vote strikethrough by Jerry - These were useless oneliners when nominated, but now have some content, sources and an assertion of notability - which is a lot more than the majority of existing Given Name articles have. They are still stubs, ie, they are still very short articles with room for development: the remedy for that is additional work, not deletion.
HeartofaDog (
talk) 10:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
reply