Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Treat

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 - Yomangani ^talk 00:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Treat[edit]

I initially prodded this article based on non-notability. The Prod tag failed because someone thought Casey Treat was notable. He had a local radio show in the 70s. He started a redlinked Christian Center in the 80s that had a 30 person congregation, some redlinked local Christian schools, and a redlinked lecture series. He also has authored a dozen books and audiotapes (all redlinked I presume). Maybe I am missing the notable part, so I am taking this to vote. I sincerely apologize if I have missed something, but I still feel this individual is NN. Andrew c 22:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder no one had commented. Sorry about that, I've done this a few times before, and I was following instructions so I must have done something really dumb. Thanks for fixing it, DumbBOT. (ha).--Andrew c 14:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 13:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. QuiteUnusual 19:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dekimasu 10:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. He has a huge following with 2 churches and local tv coverage.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.66 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 10 October 2006.

Delete. Google did find one article about Casey Treat in the Seattle Weekly for 11/5/03. [1]. I think that multiple mentions in the mainstream press would qualify him for inclusion, but this one reference in a weekly paper is probably not sufficient. EdJohnston 17:12, 15 October 2006 (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.