Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Paul

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 RESULT was speedy keep, the nom has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Dougweller (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Paul[edit]

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

Delete Not notable, minor criminal Lời chào và lời chào (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Lời chào và lời chào[reply]
Delete per above. Plus there is barely any information here. Joker264 (talk) 06:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Clearly not a minor criminal as anyone who actually reads the short article can ascertain in that he "led an alliance of independent labor sluggers in an attempt to break the monopoly long held by Joseph "Joe the Greaser" Rosenweig and Benjamin "Dopey Benny" Fein resulting the first labor sluggers war." He was a gang leader and he was party to instigating a series of gang wars that lasted for 15 years. __meco (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability --SuperHappyPerson (talk) 12:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson[reply]

If you are referring to WP:GNG could you be specific as to how you see this person failing to meet any of the criteria? __meco (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to alert about another nomination by the same editor, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyman Abrams. Both these seem spurious to me, and all of the three above editors appear to have very little experience with Wikipedia except for a spur of delete votes in AfDs. __meco (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 19:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 19:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There has been no explanation or rationale given above for what exactly this article fails. From the looks of it, Philip Paul is indeed notable. The references should be taken on good faith. Silver seren^C 19:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There may be canvassing involved in the delete votes on this AfD. Silver seren^C 19:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I'm comfortable with asserting this to be a bad faith nomination, given that it's an SPA seemingly created to file this AfD, with immediate delete votes from two other SPAs that seem to do nothing but cast delete votes as a troika at AfD. Ravenswing 21:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Ravenswing. It's suspicious that this new user's second contribution was to start an AfD. Goodvac (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2010 (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.