Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry T. Pringle


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 05:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Harry T. Pringle

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Recreation of page deleted on March 4. Subject is not notable per WP:BIO Mwelch 00:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Editors, Harry T. Pringle was deleted some two weeks ago. However, it has six secondary links plus the obituary. Is he not notable? If not, then just kindly delete it again. Otherwise, I vote Keep.

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy Hathorn (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. Working with WP:BIO, the nom is right - and suffice it to say, while you have my condolences, the late Mr. Pringle does not satisfy that standard. This may qualify under a G4 as recreated.  --Dennisthe2 00:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 *  Speedy delete. Subject is non-notable per WP:BIO.  Article was deleted on March 4, and has now been recreated.  I put the recreation up for speedy under CSD G4, but the article author is challenging.  The author of the article asserts the subject's notability by the fact that the author has listed seven links under the "References" section.  Those links are:
 * 1) The subject's obituary. Not an independent soucre of information about the subject and also no indication of notability since literally anyone can have an obituary run about their friend or loved one.
 * 2) Web site of the Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners Assocation. Subject was apparently a member of this organization.  Not an independent source of information about the subject, though it hardly matters because the web site doesn't mention one word about the subject anyway.
 * 3) Web site of the Independent Payroll Providers Association. Subject was apparently a member of this organization.  Not an independent source of information about the subject, though it hardly matters because the web site doesn't mention one word about the subject anyway.
 * 4) Web site of SEARCH Homless Project. Subject was a Director in this organization.  Not an independent source of information about the subject. Doesn't provide any more information about the subject, anyway, beyond that he was a director and with the Pringle Resources company.
 * 5) A simple business directory listing of the subject's company. So OK, that might be a decent confirmation that he did indeed have a two-perosn company called Pringle Resources, with annual sales all of $200,000.  Not exactly notable, though. Reference is trivial.
 * 6) A campaign donation list that tells us he once donated to the Republican National Committee. Also a bit less than notable. Reference is trivial.
 * 7) Web site of Honor Your Father prostate cancer research campaign Subject was apparently a sponsor of this campaign. Not an independent secondary source of information about the subject, but hardly matters since it provides no information about him beyond the fact that he was a sponsor. Not notable.
 * As I mention, this article has already been deleted once. And I fail to see how any of these links establish WP:BIO notability even in the slightest. Mwelch 00:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Was the page deleted through the normal channels, Mwelch? If yes, go ahead and hang a db-repost tag on the page.  If it was originally a speedy, let it go through the AfD process. --Dennisthe2 01:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain. Good point, though, in that it may have been, so indeed no harm in going through the process.  I've adjusted my vote accordingly.Mwelch 01:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Mwelch. None of the sources stand up to scrutiny so the article fails WP:N. — Pious7Talk Contribs 01:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Mwelch. Sounds like he was a great guy who died too early, but sources don't support WP:BIO criteria. OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as there appears, from the work of Mwelch, that there is a lack of non-trivial sources from which information can be added to this article to make it encyclopedic. --Jayron32| talk | contribs 04:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, another special. The editor sometimes makes good contributions but has a shaky grasp of notability standards, and apparently wishes to force us to AFD everything, which is tedious. -- Dhartung | Talk 04:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:N.--Paloma Walker 04:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Mwelch. Maxamegalon2000 05:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 18:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, insufficiently notable, WP:NOT a memorial. NawlinWiki 17:26, 27 March 2007 (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.