Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Still (3rd nomination)


 * 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. Consensus appears to be that the subject does not meet the general notability guidelines, and there is no apparent consensus to merge or redirect. 28bytes (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Bill Still
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-noteworthy blp, deleted twice prior. Some minor note as being a losing minor party candidate in a primary, but not enough to sustain a bio. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Not otherwise notable.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  01:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 05:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Coverage not sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG, fails WP:POLITICIAN.--JayJasper (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to The Secret of Oz to open the doors for the future. Dejakh ~ User talk:Dejakh•Special:Contributions/Dejakh 20:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The Secret of Oz is also up for deletion. Articles_for_deletion/The_Secret_of_Oz Enos733 (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. He's non-notable, and I don't think it should be redirected to the Oz movie, as looking at the article it seems to be of dubious notability itself. Ducknish (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2012, per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Subject has received some coverage, but none that I would be considered significant coverage. As those mentions are about a notable event, it could be said that the subject may fall under WP:BLP1E. Per POLOUTCOME, a redirect should be left in the article space to the event which is the subject of the article United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2012.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not seem to meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:FILMMAKER. Mkdw talk 05:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2012 is not a bad idea, he is listed there and redirects are cheap. J04n(talk page) 11:33, 3 April 2013 (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.