Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Bohan


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 02:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

John Bohan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. It appears the most notable thing he's done was being convicted for fraud. Greedo 8  16:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete No in depth coverage in articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep His conviction for fraud is highly relevant for anyone researching his background. I suspect the request to delete was made by him or someone in his camp. 76.94.216.84 (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC) — 76.94.216.84 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment, Please try to keep all conversation civil, and stay on the topic of his notability. I am highly offended by your baseless accusations of being "in his camp." Furthermore, just because someone was convicted of a crime it does not mean they deserve a wikipedia article. Greedo  8  02:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * OK boys, relax both of you. Greedo8, there is not anything to be offended about. IP, do not accuse someone without any proof of it though I think you did it in good faith I do not recommend it. . --BabbaQ (talk) 09:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 16:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

 
 * weak keep - apparently this "simple fraud" has been covered a lot in media. --BabbaQ (talk) 09:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * delete as per WP:BLP1E. Take the fraud away and he's barely noticed. LibStar (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with User:LibStar! SarahStierch (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2014 (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.