Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Jedick


 * 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.  Sandstein  14:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Pete Jedick

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable author lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance to support notability. Fails WP:BIO. red dog six (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Can't see anything that would pass for a reliable source. Notability not established. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete and userfy (I initially nominated this for deletion) I spent 15 mins trying to find anything that could be considered a review or analysis of his work. I failed. This is not a bad article, but it appears to be completely unreference-able and an example of good original research. Sadly, that is not what we are doing here. Suggest moving to creator's userpage in case they wish to personally preserve this for usage elsewhere. SFB 21:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete / userify as lacking in-depth coverage from independent reliable third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:06, 15 November 2011 (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.