Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Orvetti (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   no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Peter Orvetti
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Courtesy nomination. This was nominated by an IP, discussion page created by User:Romrem04, but added clumsily to the June 12 AFD logs, with no templates, it seems to have been missed. The entry is still tagged for AFD, I am reposting a properly fomatted discussion here in lieu of removing the tags. Comments from the previous verison of this page follow. Hairhorn (talk) 04:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Hairhorn (talk) 04:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Subject is not notable enough for inclusion -- nothing interesting in last few years


 * Once notable, always notable. Is this AfD properly formed? It looks off.  There was prior AfD of this I think.--Milowent (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

How long does this have to stay here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.118.179.2 (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Normally only 7 days, however I don't think this nomination was done right. If someone wants me to nominate it correctly, let me know.--Milowent (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sufficient achievement for inclusion. Carrite (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2010 (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.