- 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. Tone 15:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Timothy E. Punke
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Timothy E. Punke ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. This article was already deleted once and the creator just added the middle initial to get around the previous deletion, so may even be a case of speedy deletion. We should also WP:SALT for good measure. GPL93 ( talk) 15:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Nothing here is so "inherently" notable as to exempt him from actually having to pass WP:GNG, but none of the sources are getting him past GNG — it's referenced to a mix of primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things or people, not to coverage that's substantively about him. Wikipedia is not a place where professional anythings are entitled to repost their résumés just because they exist: the basis for inclusion in Wikipedia is not the things the article says, but the quality of the referencing that the article uses to support what it says, and none of the references here are cutting it. Bearcat ( talk) 17:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Does not meet general notability criteria, poor sources. Spyder212 ( talk) 20:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Another run of the mill lobbyist. Fails my standards for notable lawyers. Bearian ( talk) 23:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- 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.