Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Persing


 * 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 no consensus. Despite of there being 2 delete !votes against 2 keep, I'd go for a closure per keep as one of the delete vote is the nom while other vote was made when the article was is pretty poor state compared to the current one. Since the issues with the nom are addressed, I believe that keep closure would be appropriate, but as the delete votes weren't changed, "no consensus" would be a better choice. (non-admin closure)  TheSpecialUser TSU 00:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Eric Persing

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Delete article: No substantive or supported claim to notability or notoriety regarding the article's subject. Jsharpminor (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - Simply because no rationale for deletion has been presented. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Deletion rationale is now present. Jsharpminor (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Struck my speedy above. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 04:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I have improved the article with a number of citations to show notability. There is also an Albany Times article and several books that I didn't use.   Th e S te ve   21:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think    are enough evidence of significance of the subject due to his work at Roland Music and Spectrasonics. This one looks promising too, but I'm afraid I can't quite make what it says — Frankie (talk) 16:40, 6 September 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.