Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tito Perdue (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 keep. North America1000 08:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Tito Perdue
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable author/white supremacist. Scaleshombre (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment this article was nominated for deletion (AfD) not even two months ago and the result was "keep". Not sure how anything would have changed between now and then, but notability is not temporary in any case. Tillerh11 (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep And WP:TROUT Nom for ignoring that AfD.  I came upon this one going though the AUTHORS AfD; The discussion looked like a slam dunk delte. Nevertheless, I did as I usually do with authors and ran him through a proquest news archive search (I find starting with the search more efficient than startin by reading all the comments; which often look different after I've seen what comes up in a search,) and... WOW!  His books were extremely widely reviewed.  That was when I noticed User:Tillerh11's comment and the recent AfD.  As editors weighing in there stated, the reviews are dispositive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - such a rapid AfD re-submission somewhat ridiculous. At the risk of nicking the previous arguments, LA Review 1, LA Review 2. A quick hunt will bring up others if you want a second intellectually independent source. In any case I feel a speedy close is justified given the circumstances. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2018 (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.