Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Adam Kontras (3rd nomination)

Summary of how I have weighted the arguments: The arguments to delete the page are primarily based on the argument, which has not been refuted, that insofar as there is coverage of Mr. Kontras in reliable sources, the coverage is insignificant, transient, insubstantial, and trivial, and that insofar as there is substantial coverage of Mr. Kontras, it is not in reliable sources.
 * Shimeru: Neutral.
 * Rankiri: Full and valid delete argument
 * Gordon P. Hemsley: Discounted. Only rationale is that the nominator may be someone other than who he/she claims to be; WP:SK specifically rules out procedural keeps due to bad-faith nomination if some other person has argued for deletion.
 * Rklawton: Full and valid delete argument.
 * Outback the koala: Full and valid keep argument.
 * Silverseren: Partially discounted keep argument. Main rationale appears to be WP:ILIKEIT; also makes reference to bad-faith nomination issues (which have been ruled out) and to a Google search, which doesn't prove anything.
 * Evalpor: Partially discounted keep argument; primarily a bare assertion fallacy.
 * Netitude: Partially discounted delete argument; reasonable argument but new user with only edits to this page.
 * Bradcwriter: Discounted. Argument from new user with only edits to this page and connected pages, and main rationale is bad faith in the nomination which has been ruled out as a concern. Possibly canvassed or meatpuppet.
 * 7ObFuScAtoR7: Discounted. Argument from new user whose first edit was to this page. Almost certainly canvassed or meatpuppet.
 * Limeisneom: Discounted as bare vote.

As such, the result of the debate is delete. I have carefully considered this closure and am satisfied that it is correct. I am not, therefore, open to reconsidering it and if anyone feels I have closed it otherwise than in accordance with the deletion policy, they are welcome to list at WP:DRV. Stifle (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)