Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Merrill

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. NW (Talk) 20:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Merrill[edit]

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

Not notable. Speedy tag removed over and over by a series of socks, nominated for AfD in lieu of yet another speedy tag; I don't think a prod tag would last long either. Hairhorn (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is some coverage of this person in the Duluth newspaper but not nearly enough to meet WP:BIO demands of significant coverage RadioFan (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the networking site he established might just possibly be notable, but that needs to be considered on its own merits. PatGallacher (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If anything, the website itself might deserve an article (no opinion), but I have a hard time believing that creating a non-notable website is itself the stuff of notability. -Glenfarclas (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 - This article is written like vandalism. But apparently it's not. We're told the website has been mentioned in four newspapers, so possibly some potential there, but not for Pete Merrill, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 20:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict) Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. I have replaced the template in the article, as there is no indication that this is worth spending time and effort discussing at AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - per A7. December21st2012Freak (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined but delete anyway. I have declined the speedy deletion nomination, as the article at least makes a claim to some sort of notability. However, I believe that claim will not pan out when faced with the need to produce the goods for real. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:16, 29 November 2009 (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.