 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2019 April 6. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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. Seems like this article has new sources after the last deletion discussion and the main point of contention appears to be whether the rather bare-bones sources nevertheless satisfy GNG requirements even after throwing out a bunch of self-published ones. Seems like this is pretty evenly split between folks who think the sources scrape by and these who don't, with no side having a killer argument. Perhaps the delete case is a bit stronger, but not in my assessment enough to warrant a "delete" close. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Changed the closure to delete per discussion on my talk page. It seems like the sources discussed here were already (implicitly) assessed in the preceding AfD and judged insufficient, and comments from previous participants indicated that they still consider them inadequate. Thus, it now is a consensus for deletion. There is no consensus on whether an article on Hinely might be notable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)