Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lourenço da Veiga


 * 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. The reason it was nominated no longer applies and it is clearly turning into a WP:SNOW keep decision. Mgm|(talk) 09:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Lourenço da Veiga

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

Unsourced biographical article on a living person. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep No valid reason for deletion has been given. Edward321 (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Perfectly fine reason has been given!  It says it right there, "unsourced biographical article on a living person".   coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  23:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, but was any attempt even made by the nom to seek sources for a formula race driver who has competed professionally and has has 2 wins to his record?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If there was, it was insufficient. This proves his existence, this details results in 2002, and this summarises the season stats. The search to find this information did not take long at all. As the sole reason given for nomination was a lack of sources, I am interested to see how AndrewRT will reply. Esteffect (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Except for the poor justification for deletion, the individual competed, and was successful in, in a number of notable formula championships. Has also, although not noted in the article, competed in the FIA World Touring Car Championship which almost certainly proves his relevance. Esteffect (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Recommend speedy Keep with no disresrepect to the nom, as there are lots of sources out there... some even in English. I added some I found... and yours as well. A bit interested myself about the nom's comments, as the sources were readily available and adding them was no great chore.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:RS without problems. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject seems sufficiently notable; is mentioned in quite a few reliable, third party sources. Passes WP:BIO.  tempo di valse  [☎]  02:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is why speedy deletion of articles just for being uncited is a poor idea--often the sources can be found--and from the material in the article in this case, it would be clear they would be likely to exist (unless it was a hoax). WP:BEFORE remains a guideline. It should be policy. DGG (talk) 04:05, 3 April 2009 (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.