Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Kelley Stevenson


 * 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Charles Kelley Stevenson

 * – ( View AfD View log )

An autobiographical page that fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP for lack of any significant coverage. A review of the citations, as well as an online search, found only minor name mentions and self-submitted pages. This Wikipedia article was previously speedy deleted per WP:A7, but contested by the creator, User:Corezion. At their request, I am opening it for consensus opinion. — Cactus Writer (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —  Cactus Writer (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —  Cactus Writer (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - The subject of this article clearly does not approach the general notability guideline at WP:GNG or the similar guideline for biographies at WP:BASIC. VQuakr (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait? - Removed subjective content viz WP:BASIC & requested assistance from experts in field of Computer Security through Wikiproject to exceed WP:GNG minimum standards Corezion (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Deletion discussions generally run 7 days, but this is not a borderline case in which an expert's input is likely to make a difference. A non-notable subject cannot be "made" notable. VQuakr (talk) 03:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Despite a few extra weeks of discussion, not one source which would go towards demonstrating notability under GNG has been shown, and I've been unable to locate any to add to the article myself.. --joe deckertalk to me 06:44, 28 March 2012 (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.