Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Bates

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 restore Disambiguation page and delete current content. Notability not established. (to Eastmain's point in favour of retention: The typical source you supply is indeed reliable but the subject gets a one sentence quote. (I'm assuming if you found a better/lengthier one you would have given it) The article is not about the subject. I've been quoted at length, more than just a sentence, in multiple reliable sources of the same general level, but I am not notable.) The dab is useful so the page should remain, but absent a clear consensus to keep, non notable or marginally notable BLPs should be deleted. ++Lar: t/c 04:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Bates

Not notable. Not a single source provided Colin MacLaurin (talk) 05:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, not notable. OptimistBen (talk) 06:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that this used to be a disambiguation page. Zagalejo^^^ 06:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Split We should split the disam from page and Speedy Delete the rest. There are no WP:RS, that show why this is notable and the only author was an IP who seems to be in violation of WP:COI as his/her major edits have to do with the gentleman-in-question's orginization. FYI I placed a notice on the author's page directing him/her here. This entry reads like a bio from a website, and shouldn't be included here.--Adamfinmo (talk) 06:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why not revert it back to a disamb page, in the process wiping the current information? Is there another disamb that replaced it? OptimistBen (talk) 06:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There seem to be multiple reliable sources. See this Google search. Here's a typical one: http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/56022.html --Eastmain (talk) 07:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G12- copyvio of [1]. Could also be reverted to the redirect; I would think that the copyrighted revisions should be pulled, though. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2008 (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.