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 delete. MBisanztalk 03:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Another puff piece article. Fails
WP:BIO. Refs are all trade papers.
scope_creep (
talk) 21:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)reply
I have as yet no opinion about notability, but must point out that the statement that "refs are all trade papers" is blatantly untrue. Two of the sources cited are national non-trade newspapers.
86.17.222.157 (
talk) 22:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete or cut down on the lede, which reads like a resume.
74.70.146.1 (
talk) 04:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 07:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. Sources are too meager.
Xxanthippe (
talk) 01:58, 23 January 2017 (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.