Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert L. Rooks

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 Speedy keep. This page was marked as a possible duplicate of Robert Rooks by a bot, and then marked for speedy deletion under criteria A10 (duplicate article) by user:Gilo1969, presumably based on the bot report. Gilo1969 also marked it as a potential conflict of interest. user:Dondegroovily removed the speedy deletion and bot report tags with the comment "Definitely not a duplicate of Robert Rooks he's a music promoter, this guys a veterinarian", and then opened this afd with no rationale given. Looking at both articles, it is clear that the bot was wrong on this occasion - Robert Rooks is a music producer from Michigan, Robert L. Rooks is a veterinarian from California. The speedy deletion nomination was therefore based on an error, and should have been declined. I'm presuming therefore that the AfD was opened "procedurally" following the removal of the speedy deletion tag. However as no rationale for deleting it has been advanced, and the nominator clearly believes that the subject is notable, I'm closing this discussion as "speedy keep" with no prejudice to a second nomination if someone else wishes to make one (I've not looked to see if there is notability here or not, beyond noting that the article makes several assertions that put it beyond the realm of a WP:CSD#A7 speedy deletion). Thryduulf (talk) 12:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert L. Rooks

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

It sounds like this guy might have good claim to notability. Please comment, everybody. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 06:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused: what is the nominator's rationale for deletion?--Beloved Freak 11:25, 30 December 2010 (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.