Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Pickering

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. Due to insufficient participation, restoration of this article may be requested for any reason at WP:REFUND. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Pickering[edit]

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

Resolved BLP prod. However, only primary sources are used. No notability shown. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Google News returns plenty of results, but they are for a namesake who is often quoted as a business analyst. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Added, Ref — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chapman55567 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Primary and secondary references added, Internal wiki links also added — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chapman55567 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, the relevent criteria looks to be WP:CREATIVE #3 for creating a notable piece of work. Which move the discussion to the two shows and whether they are notable. Both have stub articles, but they don't say much beyond the series existing. I can't see that they have enough notability to hang this article off of. If they were demonstrated to be more notable though (e.g. they won awards, etc), then I could be convinced otherwise. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:35, 27 February 2011 (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.