Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamar Kintsurashvili

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tamar Kintsurashvili

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

There's no evidence this meets Wikipedia:JOURNALIST and searches here, here, here and here found nothing that appears significant and notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - more than sufficiently notable. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], etc. I've added her name in Georgian to her page. Nominator is kindly reminded to check native language sources prior to AfD as per WP:BEFORE :-) —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Davewild (talk) 07:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This should be a SNOW KEEP. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it shouldn't as we don't close on 1 keep sources provided or not. –Davey2010^Talk 02:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that rule listed? So if I nominated Wikipedia for deletion it would have to wait until two people commented before it could be closed? —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Awful article that could easily lead any reader to miss the significance of the person. For example, the person who wrote the article was probably a non-native English speaker and missed on the last sentence of the lede. She was appointed the director general in 2005. Is she still? Was she that for only a month and then defenestrated? The publications are so incomplete as to be very hard to locate even with the titles. As it happens, this is an accomplished person, but the article is in that dreary CV format. Now, if I had just gone and found out a bunch of information about the subject, I might want to fix the sentences that mislead less beatific readers. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2015 (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.