Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ermin Šiljak

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 (apparent bad faith nom) Syrthiss 15:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I request this article to be deleted because it was made without my permission or consultance. --Lightbulb-Bulblight 13:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete nomination - completing. Subject requests deletion. See this. Viridae^Talk 13:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep verifiable/ied, notable bio. Viridae^Talk 13:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep well unfortunate as it is that myself and viridae are the first people to vote I guess I'd better add my pennorth (and expand on what Viridae has said). Following the link he provided the person who listed this for deletion claims to be the subject and has asked for bthe deletion. I am voting keep on the basis of unfounded grounds for nomination, it being a verifiable article and no conclusive proof the user is who they say they are. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 13:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Saddly for Mr. Šiljak, he's just too good at football to be deleted. --IslaySolomon 13:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (and of course watch like any WP:BLP), notable footballer, has played on national team. Kusma (討論) 13:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sadly against his wishes, however if he can confirm who he is, perhaps he can contact the admins or Wiki staff directly and work something out to have this removed? That would have been my first action if I was in his place. --Bschott 14:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - such is the unfortunate reality of being in the public eye. WilyD 14:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• PLEASE NOTE - changing other people's comments in an AFD is extraordinarily bad form and completely unacceptable. WilyD 15:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Lightbulb-Bulblight changed everyone from Keep to Delete, I changed them back. DrunkenSmurf 15:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didnt --Lightbulb-Bulblight 15:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did. The diff doesn't lie. Kusma (討論) 15:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesnt prove anything --Lightbulb-Bulblight 15:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is proof enough, and the evidence is a lot better than for your unproven claim to be Ermin Šiljak. Kusma (討論) 15:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Let's simply face the facts, here: It's an unbiased, verifiable article on an obviously notable person. Whether or not the user is the subject (and I honestly don't care either way), the article will stay, and neither an AfD nor talking to anyone at the Wikimedia Foundation will change that. -- Kicking222 15:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I believe this may throw this whole AFD into 'bad-faith'. LB-BL has been proven, via the edit history, to be acting in bad-faith. I personally believe we should move this into a 'speedy keep' and LB-BL cited for Disrupting WP to make a point. Bad-faith nomiation. --Bschott 15:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep, even if LB-BL is who he says he is, that doesn't matter. The reasons are quite lucidly stated on the Village Pump discussion linked above. Subject is verifiable and notable. -- Deville (Talk) 15:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I think the irrational bad faith behaviour of the editor LD-BL, his odd username and excellent grasp of english that this is not in fact the person he claims to be. I would support a speedy keep. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 20:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep per bad behavior of nom. Danny Lilithborne 20:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tmorton166 the subject is notable in European football. Yamaguchi先生 22:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep And block Lightbulb from editing for a little while for his changing of votes. That is extremely out of line. Konman72 06:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lightbulb has been indefinitely blocked as a vandalism only account. Syrthiss 14:30, 10 August 2006 (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.