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. If re-nominated for deletion, a deeper analysis of the sources in article (or otherwise available) by those who feel significant coverage exists, or doesn't exist, would be helpful to the closer. Right now all I have to work with is "no it doesn't/yes it does". Therefore, and with minimal participation in mind, I can find no consensus. 78.26 _{( spin me / revolutions)} 13:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Steve Starks

Steve Starks (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep ^Talk 17:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep I'd disagree that the subject fails to meet SIGCOV guidelines. I think the articles cited on the page itself and other sources from a quick Google News search show that the coverage exists and is, in my opinion, non-trivial. Perhaps the page could use some copyediting. Gargleafg ( talk) 21:38, 6 May 2021 (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.