Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phillip Stutts

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. MBisanz ^talk 17:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Stutts

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

This is an advertisement for an executive of a PR firm and political spin-doctor. While the subject has had a few appearances as a talking head/spin-doctor on TV and has been quoted on behalf of his clients, there is no in-depth coverage of this individual. I don't believe these appearances on behalf of his clients meet the bar to pass WP:ENT. Note that almost all content has been contributed by 3 WP:SPA editors. Toddst1 (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all convincing for the needed notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the criteria of WP:GNG AusLondonder (talk) 08:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found many references to him in a variety of news sources. When he gets quoted so often on political issues, people want to know who he is (at least people who consider the source in evaluating info...), so I think the article is a keep.RockyMtChai (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being a paid spokesperson that leads to him being referred to in news sources does not satisfy WP:GNG or any other standard of notability. Toddst1 (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very ordinary - involved with, co-coordinated, etc. - every national election has dozens if not hundreds of such functionaries. Bearian (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2016 (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.