Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eva Carrière


 * 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 kept - snowball - just a misunderstanding on the nom's part, I'm sure. ;-) —Giggy 13:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Eva Carrière

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I'm tried to search for this, article is confusing and doesn't seem real. I have no problem with being completely wrong with this, but it seems entirely made up by the article creator. Keeper |  76  |  what's in a name?  00:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, didn't you read my references? Smith Jones (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your references? I didn't see any references. Keeper  |  76  |  what's in a name?  00:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * They're there and they check out; he just didn't have them listed anywhere. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * opts, thanks SarcastidIcealist. I had forgotten. Smith Jones (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep Sources were provided. Epbr123 (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keeper... you withdrawing your nom? --Pmedema (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep looks decent to me, glad you got the reflist sorted out! %% -SYKKO- %% (talk to me) 02:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - though references still need some work, http should be replaced with the pages title, journal.PB666 yap 03:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Pulling a Keep out of my hat The article is not well-written, admittedly. But Eva's notability in this world can be confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, needs cleanup and lots of it, but not deletion. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 03:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the aritlcle needs work but the author clearly worked very hard to make ti the way it is now and it is beter to continue to fix the article and than to delete it for Smith Jones (talk) 03:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I thought you were the author? LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to Arthur Conan Doyle any relevant portions. The article subject has little individual notability, and the useable information from this article would be better in the article of the more notable subject, Doyle. S. Dean Jameson 04:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets WP:N and WP:RS. LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:14, 12 July 2008 (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.