Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Parkhill


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Ben Parkhill

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence subject meets WP:GNG. Hirolovesswords (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, non-notable BLP. SportingFlyer  talk  02:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete No significant coverage in WP:RS. Lorstaking (talk) 05:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Being a political consultant and/or chief of staff to other officeholders is not an automatic inclusion freebie. It can get a person into Wikipedia if they can be referenced over WP:GNG as having received reliable source coverage about them in media for it (e.g. the Chief of Staff to the president will almost certainly qualify for an article, while the chief of staff to a congressperson probably won't) — but it does not guarantee an article to every person with that job title who has ever existed. But two of the three footnotes here are the (deadlinked) primary source websites of his clients, and the third is IMDb, which means that zero of them constitute notability-supporting coverage. Bearcat (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.