Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Shalosky

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The result was nomination withdrawn due to sourcing improvements. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Shalosky

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:GNG for it, which one profile in The Advocate won't prove even if the link can be retrieved. Delete unless the sourcing can be substantively improved. Bearcat (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Maybe not a mountain but he keeps getting coverage. Adam-yo! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam10749 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looked great, until all the links were eitehr broken or passing mentions.
Stuartyeates (talk) 01:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

My experience is different. All the links but one work, and most all the items are primarily about him. Adam10749 — Preceding undated comment added 07:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep In the past two days or so,
WP:GNG - indeed, I would regard notability as undeniably established if the article had one or two further substantial reliable sources from outside Charleston. But there are some non-Charleston sourcing, and at least one of the Charleston publications cited (The Post and Courier) seems to be of regional rather than just local significance. Notability may be somewhat borderline, but personally I think that it is met. PWilkinson (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you, I've used wikis before and the tools for adding a reference were friendly to use. User:Adam10749 — Preceding undated comment added 22:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was inclined to close this as a keep per @PWilkinson: however, I think that relisting this in light of Adam's updates to the article would be better to acertain actual consensus. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, I'm formally withdrawing this due to the sourcing improvements that have taken place since I first listed it. Thanks, @Adam10749:, nice job. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.