Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SAMTIME

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Michig (talk) 08:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SAMTIME[edit]

SAMTIME (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:BIO Kleuske (talk) 11:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete For reasons mentioned above. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete – Does not meet WP:BASIC. Not finding any coverage in reliable sources to qualify an article. North America1000 18:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there's nothing to suggest this even comes to close to meeting the minimal notability and third-party coverage required. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as notability not fulfilled and no independent resources. Wikimalte (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. Subject seems to lack "significant coverage" in reliable sources and therefore doesn't meet the notability requirement of the WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actually, there is enough evidence that he exists and is not dead. 92.17.191.215 (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2019 (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.