Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Van Silver

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. --BDD (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Van Silver[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Beerest355 Talk 20:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no real claim of notability, except through 'inheritance'. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - That is an interesting claim of "inheritance" above... Hmmm. Actually, this is a professional golf caddy, so there is indeed a plausible claim to notability to be made. The footnotes list a Golf Digest article "about" the subject, but the link is now 404-ed and a search of the Golf Digest archive isn't turning up anything obvious for me. A Google search is also not pointing me towards anything that will get us over GNG. Looks like a GNG fail, not being the subject of substantial coverage in multiple, independently published sources of presumed reliability. Carrite (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2013 (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.