Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Austin Stamper

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. Swarm ♠ 01:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Austin Stamper

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

Minor wrestling owner lacking non-trivial support. Support lacks independence and a large number of the items do not refer to the individual. Article appears to be written by subject. reddogsix (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would say this article has a fair level of notability. CDRL102 (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and draft/userfy for now - I acknowledge both sides but after my numerous searches and the weight of the current sources, there's actually not much and it's worth noting a browser search won't even find much. I think we'll wait until a more blossoming article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 16:35, 26 July 2015 (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.