Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elvis Gomes


 * 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   delete. Consensus to delete ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 16:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Elvis Gomes

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The subject of the article appears has appeared in a few reliable sources, mostly providing quotes used in the articles that are primarily about other subjects. The sources I have found are slightly more then passing references to the subject, but are not in depth coverage focused on him. This is borderline in terms of notability under WP:GNG and fails the WP:BIO guideline. Normally I would not be inclined to nominate a such a page for deletion, but I have received a request on my talk page indicating the subject would like that article deleted and requesting help in that regard. In light of the weakness of the subject's notability, and assuming good faith as to the authenticity of the subjects request (which I have not verified), I think the proper result is that we should delete the article under WP:BIODEL. Monty 845  16:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Article (and it's subject) are just short of notability. Needs to be elected to some general office above city level. Needs slightly higher credentials. Student7 (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I declined a request for speedy deletion with a reason of 'because the subject didn't like it', as that is not a valid reason at CSD. I replaced this with A7 as I couldn't see any reason for it to pass GNG or BIO. I still don't. Peridon (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

This article should not be deleted.because it is genuine and reliable.i strongly condem it's deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.38.137.241 (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.