Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Page


 * 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   keep per withdrawal. (WP:NAC) flaminglawyerc 22:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable cobbler. The one RS from the Dallas Star does not meet the criteria for multiple third-party sources. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC) WITHDRAWN: Yep, the improvements to RS satisfy notability requirements, IMO. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions.   —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * delete - non-notable. google search turned up his shoe store. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete: Would need more than one RS reference to show notability. This might be an interesting, quirky life story but encyclopaedic notability has yet to be proved. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 06:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Certainly does not qualify as notable under WP:PROF. But has enough independent media coverage to justify keeping under WP:BIO, in my opinion.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I created a reflist section and added a few more references to the article. I also reorganized the text a little bit to highlight the main notability claim.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The article has been improved and is now sufficiently interesting to fall under WP:BIO. He is certainly no longer an academic and should not be judged by that standard.-- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 20:01, 27 December 2008 (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.