Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Pullen

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 a non-admin keep per WP:SNOWBALL. SorryGuy Talk 00:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Pullen[edit]

Only 1000 hits on Google, seemingly unnotable subject _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.} 19:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references in the article are sufficient to demonstrate notability. He died in 1992, and therefore would not have the same number of Google hits as someone of comparable notability who is still alive today. --Eastmain (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can only find article through wikipedia,so expect more will read it when it is on google! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Francis pullen (talk • contribs) 23:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to have been a significant racing horse owner of his day, which would allow him to pass WP:N as there are enough WP:RS. Also, apprenticed the young Peter Bromley which both articles should mention. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't like Google hits as a standard for notability. We should judge the reliability of sources given in the article as the basis of for WP:NOTE. Dekisugi (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was watching this article from creation, and did consider nominating for deletion. I think there are problems with WP:COI, but there is great potential, particularly with the developer aspect. There was a lot of post-war development that still shapes London today. Add in the racing connections and it's a definite keep - a lot of work needed, but a keep. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources are sufficient. Ghits for a historical figure are irrelevant--nominating on that basis alone does not seem very sensible to me. I suggest a rereading of WP:RS. DGG (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2008 (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.