Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kronick

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. Nomination effectively withdrawn with "keep" by nominator. —Bagumba (talk) 12:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kronick

Kronick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

No sources, very few people on the list meeting notability requirements. TylerBurden (talk) 05:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. TylerBurden (talk) 05:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I assembled a complete list of English Wikipedia biographies matching the name under one of the provided spellings, of whom only William is currently on the list. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • David A. Kronick
  • David C. Kronick
  • Morris Kronick (birth name of Maury Kaye)
  • Richard Kronick
  • William Kronick
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the full edit history and it seems like the article was basically hijacked in September 2020 and turned into whatever it was before your edit and then just never fixed, before that it was a bit of a stub but probably an acceptable state. I thought it had always been like this, but that is my mistake not having checked before nominating. --TylerBurden (talk) 06:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Now that it's been cleaned up it seems useful. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I should have properly combed the history before the nomination, altough unfortunate that it was in such a state for almost two years, the article seems fine in the current state. --TylerBurden (talk) 06:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as there several disambiguate links. Pakhaetaey (talk) 07:27, 21 February 2022 (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.