Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank cooper III


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 11:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Frank cooper III

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability pretty sketchy per WP:BIO. I could be convinced either way, but if this passes AfD, then the notability tag should be removed. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - certainly those with lesser notability have articles. Star767 02:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't take it as a personal attack or what's worse, harassment, but your reason might not be valid. See WP:WAX.  smt cha hal  (talk) 11:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran ( t  •  c ) 00:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Multiple instances of substantial independently published coverage showing in the footnotes, including pieces from Advertising Age and Billboard. A really bad challenge, seemingly, easy pass of GNG. Carrite (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: Substantial coverage in reliable sources.  smt cha hal  (talk) 07:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Definitely passes WP:GNG through in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. There's been some good cleanup since the nomination, but even then it wasn't fit to delete. --BDD (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Coverage in reliable sources and the article passes WP:GNG. -- Cheers, Ri l ey    19:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. The article passes WP:GNG and has multiple coverage in reliable sources. — Joaquin008  ( talk ) 10:27, 18 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.