Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shayan Italia (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 speedy keep. WP:SK#1 and WP:SK#3. Nom does not appear to have viewed article history or present a valid reason for deletion. For an article that has been around in some form for 10 years, it has clearly been edited by more than just one user. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shayan Italia

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

All publicity surrounding Shayan appears to be self-generated. This article has been written primarily just by one user and reads like a vanity piece. Urismaze (talk) 08:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per clear consensus in the first AfD, which the nominator appears to have completely ignored. --Michig (talk) 06:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig. I also note that this AfD was the nominator's third edit on Wikipedia; is there something we should be told? In any case, I was tempted to clse this as being out of process; the article is ~10 years old so not written 'primarily just by one user' and for the rest, well, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. — fortunavelut luna 09:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have however removed most of the PROMO, unsourced, cruft etc., which was indeed a problem. — fortunavelut luna 09:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:SK#1, WP:SK#3. Nominator clearly did not read the article or it's history and does not advance any valid reason for deletion. Regards So Why 09:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2017 (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.