Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyle Zapato (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Lyle Zapato
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

As this article is written, the subject appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:RS. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete some minor interviews and mentions, but nothing to established notablity to wiki standards. We66er (talk) 05:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  TravellingCari  01:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. How many times does this need to be relisted, if no one says anything in favor of keeping it, and there are a few good reasons to delete it.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with the nominator that there does not seem to be enough reliable sourcing to pass WP:BIO. The article seems to serve mainly as a promotional vehicle for the subject's book and website. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, not enough for keeping. Punkmorten (talk) 08:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:40, 1 October 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.